Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Hunter Aircraft (Crashes)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now make a statement on the loss of the six Hunter aircraft which crashed in Norfolk on Wednesday, 8th February, 1956.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): The court of inquiry has reported and has shown that the accident was not due to aircraft failure. As a result of its recommendations and of the observations of senior officers upon them, certain summaries of evidence are to be taken.
I will make a further statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Stokes: While I am glad to know that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, in view of the fact that, apart from the tragic loss of life, this accident entailed the loss of £750,000 or thereabouts in aircraft, will the Minister say whether he is now satisfied that the air conditions were such that the aircraft ought to have been sent up? Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that the diversion stations had been preselected and were properly ready to deal with the situation?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman's questions are both extremely relevant but, as the case is sub judice, I would rather not comment on them at this stage.

Equipment (Overseas Saks)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration is given to commercial rights for home and export sales of radio, radar and electric equipment when the Royal Air Force sells such equipment in new condition to other countries; and what steps are taken to avoid competing with the manufacturers of such equipment.

Mr. Birch: With one or two exceptions where special considerations apply, new equipment which is available from commercial sources is not sold by the Royal Air Force to other countries except at the direct request of Governments with whom we have formal supply agreements. Proprietary equipment is supplied only with the manufacturers' consent.

Air Commodore Harvey: In the case of such deals as do take place, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he gets the best price that could have been obtained by the commercial companies?

Mr. Birch: That is again a very relevant point. I am advised that sometimes the price is higher and sometimes less.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are taken by the Royal Air Force to ensure that radio, radar and electronic equipment sold in new condition to other countries functions to the satisfaction of the purchasing Government; and what facilities are provided in the way of after-sales service of this equipment to protect the reputation of this country's products in the export field.

Mr. Birch: All equipment is inspected by the Aeronautical Inspection Service before dispatch, the purchasing Government being represented if they so wish. The Royal Air Force has no responsibility for maintaining the equipment after it has been sold. Technical advice is supplied if required.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend think it is a good thing for British equipment to be sold to foreign Powers when there is no real after-sales service given? Could he do something to ensure, perhaps through the companies themselves, that after-sales service is given? Otherwise it ruins the name of British equipment.

Mr. Birch: I understand that very few complaints have been received on this score. I quite agree that that is a good point, and I understand that in many cases the manufacturers do give after-sales service.

Station, Sandwich (Royal Visit)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what special event is to be celebrated at the Royal Air Force Camp, Sandwich, Kent, on Thursday, 22nd March; what preparations have been made for the occasion; how many weekend leave passes have been cancelled recently to enable preparations to be completed; and in what way were the Royal Air Force men and women concerned employed instead of being on leave.

Mr. Birch: Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester is visiting the R.A.F. Station, Sandwich, tomorrow. Appropriate preparations have been made. About sixty passes were cancelled last weekend to enable them to be completed.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister say how these men were employed at the weekend instead of going on leave? Is he aware that for the very first time kerbstones and manhole covers were painted, and that indoor dustbins were also painted to match the colour of the furniture? Does he not think that it is thoroughly dishonest to paint a picture which is so different from the normal conditions? Is this not the sort of thing that makes intelligent men decide against continuing to serve with the Regulars and being at the mercy of such stupid mentalities?

Mr. Birch: Most of the leave passes that were stopped were for women, not for men. This is a fighter control station where a large number of W.R.A.F. personnel are employed. The Duchess of Gloucester is Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. From my own Service life, I am bound to say that I have always thought that one of the objects of having an inspection was to enable one to see how well one could turn out the station or the barracks. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to receive a Royal visit he would certainly give things a wipe over.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was ever called upon to paint dustbins?

Mr. Birch: I have not heard that dustbins were painted. A certain amount of painting has been done, but I understand that the contract for that was let long before the visit was arranged.

Service Aircraft (Price Negotiations)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Air in how many cases, other than that of the Comet II aircraft, is the price paid for Service aircraft negotiated by the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Birch: In all cases.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister therefore saying that he accepts aircraft without reference to the price? Does he not have any control at all over the amount he has to pay for these machines?

Mr. Birch: As the hon. Member knows, the system is that the Air Ministry states its operational requirements, and from that stage on the matter is taken over by the Ministry of Supply. Of course the price is relevant, because obviously the number of aircraft we can have depends very largely on the price. We take the closest interest in the price, but we do not negotiate it.

Mr. Stokes: If the price is not known, how is the further set-up worked out? Further, is the Minister satisfied that these are on a firm price basis, or are they all cost plus?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman should address those questions to the Ministry of Supply, because that is the Ministry which negotiates these prices.

Mr. Beswick: Are we therefore to understand that over that item which is the largest single item in the Air Estimates the Secretary of State has no control at all?

Mr. Birch: As the hon. Member knows, the Secretary of State has no direct dealings with the firm. That is done by the Ministry of Supply.

Comet II Aircraft

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many years service he expects to get from the unmodified Comet II aircraft purchased for Transport Command.

Mr. Birch: All the Comet II aircraft coming into the Royal Air Force are expected to give four or more years' service.

Mr. Beswick: Are we to understand that the Secretary of State accepted into the Service an aircraft the price of which was not his concern at all but the life of which was limited to 2,000 hours utilisation and which was not able to do certain operations at all because of restrictions laid upon it as to airworthiness? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is the best way to get value for the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Birch: The aircraft to which the hon. Member refers, with that number of hours life, is useful for the purposes for which we are using it. [Laughter.] Indeed, it is. We are, of course, concerned about price, but what I am saying is that we do not ourselves negotiate prices.

Mr. Usborne: Is not the long and short of it that the Government have decided to give a subsidy to de Havillands and that this is the way they are doing it—by buying up otherwise scrap aircraft?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many tenders have been received in respect of the construction of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel; and if he will make a statement giving a date when work will commence on the main tunnelling.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Seven tenders have been received. I cannot say precisely when the main tunnelling will start, because the contractor will have to do a considerable amount of preliminary work, which may take several months.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister appreciate that the fact that this project is to start and that it has not been clamped down on because of the financial difficulties will be received with great satisfaction on both sides of the Thames?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Minister tell us what the range of prices is? Are these all identical tenders?

Mr. Watkinson: No, they certainly are not.

Linlithgow Bridge

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has now been made with the construction of Linlithgow Bridge.

Mr. Watkinson: I have advertised for tenders.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the statement made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary last time I raised this question that the Stirling County Council was to blame for the delay has caused great offence there? Would he make quite clear his more recent conclusion that the county council had nothing whatsoever to do with that delay?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think anyone is to blame. The important fact is that I have advertised for tenders, and if they are satisfactory the work will start.

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary definitely said then that the delay was due to the Stirling County Council, and that has caused great offence. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the least he can do is to withdraw that suggestion courteously, as he has done in the letter?

Mr. Watkinson: I am perfectly willing to do that, but as I have not all the facts at the moment I will first carefully look into them.

Pedestrian Crossings (Casualties)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many people were killed or seriously injured on zebra crossings in 1955 compared with 1954.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Eighty-three and 837 respectively, compared with 80 and 785 in 1954.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman still plead, by way of an excuse, that the number of cars has increased more than the number of appalling accidents on zebra crossings? Is not that excuse quite misleading if


he does not know how many cars there are on the roads at the time when these unfortunate accidents take place?

Mr. Molson: The fact that between 1954 and 1955 the number of cars on the roads increased by 600,000 is obviously very largely an explanation of why there has been this increase in the number of accidents.

Speed Limit Signs, Salsburgh

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the earliest date on which the 30-mile-perhour speed limit signs will be erected at Salsburgh.

Mr. Watkinson: I propose to advertise in the Glasgow Herald of 23rd March my intention to apply the 30 m.p.h. limit to the built-up section of this road through Salsburgh. Ten days must be allowed for objections; if there are none, the erection of the signs should follow rapidly.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling among parents in Salsburgh? They just cannot understand why a decision given by the Minister on 9th February should take all this time to implement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling has been greatly increased by the death of another 7-year-old child only ten days ago on this road, which is indeed a death trap for children and old people?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I do indeed understand and I sympathise very much, as I know we all do, with the parents of children who have been killed. The difficulty was that there was a certain conflict of view as to the length to which the speed limit should apply. That held the matter up, but, as I say, I shall now hurry it up as quickly as possible.

Fly-over, Hendon Way— North Circular Road

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it will be possible to construct a fly-over at the junction of Hendon Way and the North Circular Road.

Mr. Molson: I am at present unable to say when this scheme can be put in hand.

Mr. Russell: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is a very congested junction, particularly in the early morning and in the evening? Would he also agree that the spot is one of the easiest for building a fly-over in that the Great North Road goes down to the junction and up away from it again? Will my hon. Friend put this suggestion on an early priority list when financial circustances permit?

Mr. Molson: This fly-over will involve a diversion for which an order under Section 1 (2) of the Trunk Roads Acts will be necessary. The details of the Order are being prepared, and I think they will be available within the next two months. As the cost of the scheme is £400,000, I am not able to indicate any time within the immediate future when it will be possible to begin the work.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of fly-over bridges such as that envisaged in the Question could be of great advantage on the Great West Road and other places? Can that proposal be looked at?

Mr. Molson: It is for that reason that it is obviously necessary for us to establish a satisfactory priority.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

B.O.A.C. (South American Service)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what applications he has under consideration from the British Overseas Airways Corporation in respect of authority to purchase and operate British aircraft for the South American service.

Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir. British Overseas Airways Corporation's existing aircraft orders include provision for this service.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend encourage B.O.A.C. to re-open this service to South America with Britannias at the earliest possible date, in view of its great importance to our good name and our business in South America, and can he say when he hopes it will be?

Mr. Watkinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know his knowledge


of that part of the world, and it is absolutely right that we should start this service as soon as we can, but as it depends to some extent on delivery dates of Britannias, I cannot give a definite starting date.

Maintenance Base, Renfrew

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what rent is being paid by the present tenants for the use of the maintenance base at Renfrew; and how much of its equipment, which was formerly in use, is now unemployed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The rents paid by individual tenants at the Ministry's aerodromes are confidential, and it would not be proper for me to disclose them. I am not aware that any of the equipment referred to is not now in use.

Mr. Rankin: But this is nationalised property—paid for by the public. Why should we not know the rent which is now being paid by Scottish Aviation in view of the fact that it is doing immensely well out of the contract it is carrying out in that establishment? Can the Minister not have another thought on that?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think I need to have any more thought. I know the hon. Member realises that it is contrary to established custom to disclose rentals, but it may be for his convenience and for the convenience of the House if I say that the rent paid by the new tenants for part of the base is considerably higher than the rent paid by B.E.A.

Mr. Rankin: The Minister cannot bring me into the plot—I hope—but can he say if he is satisfied that the rent now being paid is an economic rent? Is he aware that the price being paid by the Canadian Government to Scottish Aviation for the Sabre jet contract is nine dollars per man hour?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the rent is an economic one. It is very considerably higher than the rent paid by B.E.A. having regard to the increase in the economic value of the property.

Facilities, British Caribbean (United States Air Lines)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give details of the agreement reached with the United States air lines on operations in the Caribbean area.

Mr. Watkinson: United States air lines have enjoyed valuable rights in British Caribbean territories since 1946 under the Bermuda Agreement (Cmd. 6747). In recent discussions between delegations of the United States and United Kingdom Governments it was agreed to extend these facilities in return for reciprocal rights for United Kingdom air lines in United States territory. With permission, I will circulate details of these exchanges in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

United States air lines will be permitted to operate through Jamaica on routes from Houston, New Orleans and Miami to Puerto Rico; in exchange United Kingdom air lines will be permitted to operate from British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica, British Honduras and the Cayman Islands to Houston and New Orleans.

United States air lines will also be permitted to operate a route from Miami through Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale to various points in the Bahamas. In exchange United Kingdom air lines will be permitted to operate from points in the Bahamas to Miami, Tampa and Fort Lauderdale.

Aircrew (Regulations)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the Regulations which he proposes to introduce with regard to the limitation of flight time for aircrews differentiate between night and day operations; and whether they relate to navigators, flight engineers and radio operators, as well as pilots.

Mr. Watkinson: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Regulations I am shortly to lay before Parliament.

Mr. Beswick: One of the difficulties about the Regulations is that we cannot amend them; we shall have either to accept or reject them. Can the Minister assure the House that when limitations are made they will discriminate between night and day operations and between short-and long-haul operations, because any one figure which is imposed upon these different types of flight will surely be irrelevant in one case or the other.

Mr. Watkinson: I may be wrong but I understand that we could further amend the Regulations, in which case it might be necessary to withdraw them and issue a new set. These represent a considerable step forward, and I want to try to consult all expert advice in order to get this difficult matter right.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Regulations, when made, apply equally to all members of aircrews?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I think that is so.

Yeadon Airport (Services)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for what air services he has licensed the airport of Yeadon.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend has approved ten internal and nine international air services which use Yeadon.

Mr. Jeger: Does that mean that there is now an air connection between Yorkshire and London?

Mr. Profumo: There are so many air connections that I think it might be better for me to write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a full account of them.

Mr. Jeger: I am asking about only one—London to Yorkshire.

Mr. Profumo: There is a firm which intends to open a Leeds-London service about 30th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railwaymen's Pensions

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is yet able to announce his decision on railwaymen's pensions.

Mr. Watkinson: I expect to make a statement on this subject very soon.

Mr. Osborne: But may I press my right hon. Friend to make his statement very soon—really soon—because many of the railwaymen have pensions dating to before 1939 and are really having a very hard time in view of the increased cost of living?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall try to keep to his requirements of "really soon."

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Minister say whether he will make this statement before Easter? Can he give an assurance that he will endeavour to do so, because this has been dragging on for months and months?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope to make it next week.

Speed Limit

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what changes have been made in his regulations during the last year in the speed limit rules affecting Land Rovers, jeeps and such pick-up vehicles as the Vanguard used by farmers for commercial purposes.

Mr. Watkinson: By the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1955, approved by affirmative Resolutions of both Houses, "dual-purpose vehicles," as defined in the Regulations, are now at all times and under all circumstances treated for speed limit purposes as private cars.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation to increase the speed limit in the London area, as advised by the special committee which has considered the matter.

Mr. Watkinson: Legislation is not required to implement the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the operation of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas, as no general increase is proposed. The imposition of a special speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on specific lengths of road, which has been recommended by the Committee, could be carried out under existing powers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As most accidents occur for the simple reason that cars do not stop in time, will it not be murderous madness to increase the speed limit in certain parts of the London area, which is already a slaughterhouse for pedestrians?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. and gallant Member misunderstands the purpose of this Report. The idea merely is that there should be, so to speak, a tapering off process around London so that speeds can be allowed to go up by


ten miles an hour for a period as one leaves the congested area, before one passes out of the restricted area altogether.

Mr. Page: Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter very carefully before he increases any speed limits on restricted roads? Will he remember that the Committee which recommended this change was not really representative of the people most vitally—perhaps I ought to say, most mortally—concerned, those who have to cross the roads?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the Committee for doing a very good job. It was quite fully representative. I have not yet made up my mind what action I shall take about its Report.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on speed limits in the London traffic area will be available.

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the Report is likely to be published about 12th April.

Mr. Davies: In the meantime, would the Minister place a map in the Library so that hon. Members may study it? Will he speed up his decision as much as possible, because we have had a large number of reports from the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, and many months and in fact years have passed before they have been implemented?

Mr. Watkinson: I apologise for the delay in printing, but that is due to the printing strike. I will see if I can place the Report in the Library.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How will it taper off the traffic, if that is the idea, to have a speed limit in one place of 30 m.p.h. and in another place of 40 m.p.h.? Will it not taper off pedestrians in the process?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. and gallant Member had perhaps better read the Report.

Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether in view of the continued high rate of fatal accidents involving motor cyclists, he will now make obligatory the wearing of suitable crash helmets by motor cyclists.

Mr. Molson: While I agree that suitable crash helmets afford useful protection, we prefer to rely on education and propaganda to persuade motor cyclists to wear them.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that a situation in which there are 18,000 accidents a year, killing 1,300 people, at a cost of, perhaps, £4 million to £5 million in hospital expenses, cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely? Will he not look at it again to see whether, for the protection of other people as well of these young men, the wearing of crash helmets should not be made compulsory?

Mr. Molson: There are very great difficulties in enforcing any regulation of that kind. At the present time there is a most satisfactory increase in the proportion of motor cyclists who are wearing these helmets. Four years ago practically no civilian motor cyclists were wearing crash helmets, but now about one-third are doing so.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is loath to enforce the wearing of these helmets, will he encourage their use by requesting his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the Purchase Tax from them?

Mr. Molson: I do not think that the small amount of Purchase Tax has any real effect upon the number of helmets worn.

Mr. Page: In connection with this increased rate of motor cycle accidents, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he has yet received the report of the Departmental Committee to which he referred this question? If he has, will he make the report public?

Mr. Molson: I have not yet received the report on this particular question.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the Minister think that the best way to get more crash helmets worn would be to encourage insurance companies to put up the premiums of those who do not wear the helmets?

Mr. Molson: It would be extremely difficult for the insurance companies to


do that. I have already indicated that the police would find it difficult to enforce any regulation of that kind.

Roundabout Systems, Hyde Park

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration he is giving, in consultation with the Minister of Works, to an extension of the roundabout system at Victoria Gate and Alexandra Gate in order to relieve traffic congestion at these points; and when he proposes to take action.

Mr. Molson: Roundabout working has been put into operation inside the park at Victoria Gate and the widening of the Gate is under consideration. At Alexandra Gate a scheme for roundabout working inside the park is being considered. More extensive roundabout schemes at these two gates would be expensive and would require legislation.

Captain Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that the congestion at both these gates is really intolerable every morning and evening? Surely the expense of putting a roundabout at both places would be comparatively little, which would not spoil the amenities of the park? Will my hon. Friend see whether he can expedite the matter?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly see what I can do about it. I will see if I can do what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but there are difficulties. The Ministry is anxious to preserve the amenities of the park, and, in addition, anything of a substantial nature would require legislation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that while the roundabout at Victoria Gate rather helps the flow of traffic when traffic is not very heavy, when traffic is heavy—in the rush hours—it is rather worse than before?

Driving Test Examiners, Tees-side

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to increase the number of driving test examiners in the Tees-side area in view of the long waiting period for applicants for tests.

Mr. Molson: The number will be increased from eight to eleven as soon as the additional staff we are recruiting become available.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects that to be? Does he think that until he agrees to pay considerably higher salaries than at present he will get the increased number of examiners needed?

Mr. Molson: We hope that it will be after the next examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Large Loads (Control)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take to deal with slow-moving very large loads which now hold up many vehicles and waste thousands of hours.

Mr. Watkinson: Such loads are already subject to a considerable degree of control. Proposals for further measures intended to reduce the congestion and delay caused to other traffic were circulated on 26th November for the consideration of representative organisations, and I am now examining the position in the light of the replies I have received.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say whether those proposals include a much greater use of travelling late at night or in the early hours of the morning? Could not those vehicles be suitably lit up so that there would be no danger if they were used in that way?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. and gallant Friend has put his finger on the danger. If we shift these bulky loads at night, particularly on narrow roads, we should need to have special lighting arrangements for them, but I will look into the suggestion.

Mr. Steele: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary in connection with the use of police patrol cars for escorting these very heavy loads, as I understand that no charge is being made for the service of these patrol cars?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into that point.

Car Parking, Inner London (Survey)

Mr. Partridge: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further consideration he has given to the problem of traffic congestion in inner London; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the crux of this problem is the indiscriminately parked car, and that more positive action must be taken to regulate parking in inner London and, in particular, to give the motorist a much clearer indication of where he may or may not legitimately leave his car. I have therefore invited Mr. Alex Samuels, the Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, who will be assisted in this matter by a small group of experts, to undertake a new survey of the streets of inner London with a view of determining where parking can or cannot be permitted and, where it can, for what periods of the day. I have expressed to Mr. Samuels the hope that he will be able to present a report to me within about six months.
I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who have accepted my invitation to take part in this inquiry, together with the terms of reference.

Mr. Bowles: Is the Minister aware that at the bottom of St. James's Street, opposite a "No Parking" Metropolitan Police notice, cars are often parked by tens and twenties?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree. I think every hon. Member has examples of this sort of thing forcibly brought to his attention every day. I therefore think it necessary to look again at the whole problem.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not stricter enforcement the key to this problem, and is not one of the main difficulties shortage of police? Should not any new methods of enforcement therefore be carefully considered?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a pertinent point, but I am also advised that at the moment there is a lot of confusion as to what motorists can do and what they cannot do. I should like to make that much more plain.

Following is the information:

1. The following have agreed to take part in the survey:
Mr. A. Samuels (Chairman), Chairman of the London and Home Counties T.A.C.
Mr. D. F. Allen, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation.
Mr. J. Clapp, Borough Engineer, Camberwell Metropolitan B.C.

Mr. A. W. Hogg, City Engineer and Surveyor, Westminster City Council.
Mr. C. E. Hollinghurst, Divisional Road Engineer (Metropolitan Division), Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation.
Mr. F. J. Forty, O.B.E., City Engineer, Corporation of the City of London.
Cdr. W. C. Northcott, R.N.R. (Ret.), Hon. Treasurer, Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee.
Mr. Norman Prichard, Chairman, Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee.
Mr. J. Simpson. O.B.E., Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police.
Colonel A. E. Young, C.M.G., Commissioner, City of London Police.

2. The following are the terms of reference:

1. The area to be covered should be that surveyed in the 1953 Report.*

2. Within this area the task is to survey all streets, squares, mews, etc., and indicate those
(i) in which no parking should be allowed at all,
(ii) in which a reasonable period of parking should be allowed, to be regulated by parking meters, so as to cater for the genuine needs of those who have to use their cars during the day; the days and hours of operation of these parking places should be carefully defined.
(iii) in which long-term (all-day) parking might be permitted at a relatively high price.
If in the course of this survey it is found that a case is made out for a limited degree of parking free of charge on any streets, recommendations to this effect should be made. In all cases where recommendations are made for permitted parking the maximum period or periods for which it should be allowed should be clearly defined.

3. It is most important that the motorist should be left in no doubt as to where he can or cannot park, and recommendations should be made as to the methods of sign-posting by which motorists should be told the limits of the special zone and the places within it at which parking is, or is not, allowed.

4. The pattern of existing restrictions should not be regarded as binding in connection with this survey; in particular existing legal differences between street parking places and unilateral waiting streets should be disregarded for the purposes of the survey. A realistic view should be taken of where cars do, in fact, park today for long periods without serious detriment to traffic flow, and in general, in considering the suitability of any given street or area for parking the needs of through traffic should be given high priority. The overriding need for a coherent parking plan may well involve some degree of interference with existing doctrines in regard to access.

* Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, published in 1953.

5. Where streets are scheduled as prohibited streets (paragraph 2 (1) above) recommendations should be made as to any special measures necessary to regulate exemptions for loading and unloading, collection and delivery, picking up and setting down etc., and as to any alterations necessary to existing bus stops and taxi ranks.

6. Based on information derived from the survey referred to above estimates are required of
(i) the total number of cars which could be accommodated at any one time at parking places recognised under the survey in streets, squares, etc., designated under paragraph 2 (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) the total number of cars which could be accommodated in public off-street parking places or garages, and
(iii) the number of cars which would be displaced if the recommendations arising from the survey were adopted and rigorously enforced.

7. The survey should be based on the existing pattern of one-way streets and prohibited turns in the central area, but there is no objection to recommendations for changes in this pattern if such a course were thought to be reasonable and would enable increased accommodation for parking to be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Boy Soldiers and National Service Men (Overseas Service)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of the resentment caused by sending boy soldiers and young National Service men to Cyprus and other Service stations abroad; and if he will now issue instructions to Service Departments to discontinue this practice.

The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): National Service men are an integral part of the Forces and cannot be excluded from service in any part of the world where they are needed to meet our commitments. As has been stated in the House on many occasions, no National Service man is sent overseas until he has received adequate training.
The question of sending boy soldiers overseas is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State have stated the Government's policy on many occasions in answer to Questions, and I have nothing to add to their replies.

Mr. Yates: The Under-Secretary of State for War stated yesterday that of these boys who were sent to Cyprus, five

were under the age of 16. In view of the feeling which exists, especially among parents, who have requested that these boys should be removed from this danger area, believing it to be detrimental to their future to be in an area of violence, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously reconsider the matter?

Sir W. Monckton: I said that that part of the matter was one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, but when I saw the answer to which the hon. Member referred I inquired whether there had been a mistake, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he intended to say "five aged 16," not "five under 16."

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIO CAIRO (BROADCASTS TO AFRICA)

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to hostile and inflammatory broadcasts beamed to British East Africa and Zanzibar in particular by Radio Cairo; and what action he has taken or proposes to take.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. Although I would not wish to exaggerate the impact of these irresponsible broadcasts, protests have been made to the Egyptian Government on a number of occasions. During my recent visit to Cairo, I made it clear to Colonel Nasser that this sort of propaganda made a better understanding between Egypt and Britain all the more difficult.

Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the sort of broadcast being put out from Radio Cairo is inflammatory? If I may take an instance, there was the blessing
of the souls of the martyrs of Kenya,
referring to the Mau Mau, and the encouragement to those still living to continue
fighting for the liberation of their country.

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that, whatever the provocation which may be suffered from these broadcasts, he will in no circumstances consider jamming them? Does he realise


that many of us believe that the decision to jam the broadcasts to Cyprus has already lost this country moral face in the world and that it would be disastrous if the decision were to be extended?

Mr. Lloyd: That, of course, is a very much wider issue than that raised in the Question. I think the main governing factor in this matter is whether there is direct incitement to murder. I think that in that case all steps have to be taken.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this mischievous stuff is being listened to perhaps more than he thinks, in the bazaars from Aden, through Somaliland and down to Zanzibar? I hope he will do something about this, because it is a thoroughly mischievous and a most dangerous thing.

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not want it to be thought that I minimise its importance; I only said that its impact is not being as great as might be expected but I certainly agree that it is something very much to be deprecated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (TRIPARTITE DECLARATION)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached by Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Governments of the United States of America and France, on the means of implementing the Tripartite Agreement on Israel signed in 1950.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Discussions are proceeding satisfactorily. For obvious reasons, I cannot disclose what measures are being discussed.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Bearing in mind that one of the dangers in this matter is the fact that neither side has clearly understood that the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 means exactly what it says, can my right hon. and learned Friend say to what extent he has taken steps to see that these decisions are made as quickly as possible so that both sides may clearly understand the implications?

Mr. Lloyd: As for both sides understanding the implications, I did my best in my discussions with the leaders of both Egypt and Israel to make them quite

clear. I think it is difficult ever to envisage the publication of the measures which are contemplated, but these discussions are proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Younger: In view of the fact that it is now reported in the Press that the United States is referring the Arab-Israel dispute to the Security Council of the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary say, first, whether Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with this step; secondly, whether we may take it that the question of aggression on these frontiers and the action to be taken in the event of aggression will be one of the subjects to come up before the Security Council; and, thirdly, in that event does it not mean that the Soviet Union will be associated with the discussion?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that goes considerably wide of the question on the Order Paper. With regard to what the United States is doing, that has the full approval of Her Majesty's Government. As far as the nature of the discussions is concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait to see the form of resolution which will be put forward.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read some of the reports which seem to indicate apprehension on the part of the leaders of the State of Israel? I believe that the Prime Minister of Israel himself has expressed rather disquieting opinions about the position. In view of those apprehensions, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to expedite- a decision in order to prevent any aggression?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of those apprehensions. They were expressed to me personally. With them in view, we are seeking to accelerate these discussions, which, as I have said, are proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already answered a supplementary question about the reference of this dispute to the United Nations. Will he give the House an assurance that if it is referred to the United Nations, nevertheless that in no way undermines or weakens our obligations under the Tripartite Declaration?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly the case. We stand by the spirit and the letter of


our obligations under the Tripartite Declaration, which also indicated that we seek to work within the United Nations.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it either sensible or practicable to endeavour to deal with this inflammatory situation or dangerous situation without attempting to reconcile our interests in that part of the world with the interests of other people, notably the Soviet Union? Should he not make every possible effort to draw the Soviet Union into discussions about the present situation in that area?

Mr. Lloyd: The forthcoming Security Council debate will provide such an opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMBASSADOR, MONROVIA (MOTOR CAR)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions took place with British motor manufacturers and with organisations representing such manufacturers, before it was decided that it was not practical for the British ambassador at Monrovia to use a British car; and whether he will now institute further inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether this is a matter beyond the resources of the British motor industry.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No such discussions took place. The difficulty about the purchase of a suitable British car was the lack of servicing facilities. If the position is changed in that respect, I shall be very glad for the ambassador to have a British car.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are British agents in Monrovia, including the United Africa Company? Ought it not to be possible for our Ambassadors and their staffs to give support to this industry at this particular moment?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I understand that a number of British cars are to be imported into Liberia but they are not, I gather, of a type suitable for use by the Ambassador as they are not large enough. The Ambassador is 6 ft. 6 inches tall.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the United Africa Company is not in Liberia and that the only British firm there is Paterson Zochonis? Does not the whole fault lie in the lack of an aggressive sales policy by British car firms, who have not the guts to go out and fight in these export markets, and particularly in this one, which is a dollar market, in Liberia?

Mr. Lloyd: That is, strictly speaking, not a question for me to answer. I am told that there has been a considerable change this year and that there has been some penetration of the market, but not by cars suitable for this Ambassador.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

British Honduras (Handicrafts and Agricultural Tuition)

Mr. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement as to the progress achieved in teaching handicrafts and improved agricultural techniques to the Maya in British Honduras.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Weaving and basket-making are taught in the schools at Otoxha. The people have been instructed in various forms of agriculture and horticulture to replace the old system of shifting cultivation. At Otoxha, 30 acres of ground have been cleaned and burnt, a variety of grasses has been sown and grassland is being fenced for the grazing of cattle. School gardens have been established at Otoxha and Crique Sarco, where the introduction of new seeds and the method of growing them are explained. A beginning has been made on a pig and poultry scheme at Crique Sarco.

Mr. Smithers: Is there a Maya welfare officer actually serving, as was promised by my right hon. Friend's Socialist predecessor?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Well, Sir, we have a Kekchi liaison officer, who is doing most valuable work.

British Guiana (Rice Production)

Mr. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is satisfied that production


costs for British Guiana rice will enable it to keep within the range of world prices; and the policy of the British Guiana Government with regard to production costs;
(2) whether he is aware of the need for better quality rice production in British Guiana to which attention has been drawn by the manager of the British Guiana Rice Marketing Board; and what measures are being taken to ensure this.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot foretell the future range of world prices, but I have every reason to hope that British Guiana costs of production of rice can be kept in line with those elsewhere. The British Guiana Government is however fully aware of the need for careful attention to efficiency and quality of production. Efforts are being concentrated on promoting increased use of fertilisers and better yielding varieties, on investigations into the problems of mechanisation and on the improvement of milling facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Education

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement upon the new comprehensive proposals of the Government of Mauritius to house the 10,000 children who were refused entry to the primary schools at the beginning of the present term.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A comprehensive plan has been prepared providing for construction of 528 new class rooms and accelerated training of approximately 550 new teachers within the next two years. By these means it is hoped that there will be no children awaiting admission by January, 1958, when approximately 100,000 places, compared with 72,000 at present, should be available.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the position of the pupils quite a scandal? Since 1946, the number has gone up from about 42,000 to 72,000, an increase of 70 per cent. while the budget has gone up from a little under 2 million rupees to more than 12 million rupees, or 600 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there are officials enjoying sinecures

with whom we might dispense, in order that we might have more schools built and more youngsters in those schools?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there are other difficulties in the matter, such as the willingness of parents to send their children to school, the absence of any powers to see that the children leave school when they reach standard six and the fact that the growth of population in Mauritius is 47·5 per thousand, compared with 15·9 per thousand in the United Kingdom and even only 25·8 in India. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that, as 75 per cent. of the children in Mauritius are in the primary schools, the Mauritius Government have done a good job; but they are not satisfied with it.

Local Government Elections

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the principal findings of the Keith Lucas Commission upon the Port Louis, Mauritius, Municipal Elections; and what further action he is taking in this matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Commission found the conduct of local government elections in Mauritius to be unsatisfactory, particularly with regard to the registration of electors, and it has recommended certain changes in the existing law and practice on these matters. I understand that the Report is being debated in the Colony's Legislative Council during this month and that appropriate legislation will be introduced shortly afterwards. Copies of this Report have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister not think that the behaviour of the independent mayor, Mr. Mohamed, was perfectly scandalous in allowing minors and aliens to vote in key wards to his own advantage? Will he not suspend the town council of Port Louis, at least until the end of the year, when elections take place?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the hon. Member will realise that any further action which is required on the findings of the Commission is the concern of the Mauritius Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Nile Waters Agreement

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that treaties entered into with Egypt for the control of the levels of Lakes Victoria and Albert are still in the best interests of the peoples of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The waters of Lakes Victoria and Albert form part of the Nile system, and as such come within the scope of the Nile Waters Agreement of 1929. The East Africa Royal Commission saw no reason why it should not be possible, in accordance with the principles of that Agreement, to negotiate on behalf of the three territories an equitable share of the waters of the Nile; I agree with this view. Recently the Governments of Egypt and the Sudan have been informed that Her Majesty's Government formally reserve their rights to negotiate on behalf of the three territories with the Egyptian and Sudanese Governments for an agreed share of the waters of the Nile.

Mr. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement of British policy will be most welcome in East Africa?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend. We certainly have no intention of abdicating our rights in this matter.

Zanzibar (Coutts Report)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the Coutts Report which has advised elections upon the common roll for the Zanzibar Protectorate.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached on the recommendations of Mr. W. F. Coutts regarding constitutional changes in Zanzibar; and, in particular, regarding the allocation of the six nominated members to represent racial groups in the Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would prefer not to make a statement at the present time,

as the Report has only recently been published and is still being considered by His Highness the Sultan's Government. But I am very happy to be able to tell the House that, following the publication of the Report, the Arab leaders in Zanzibar have agreed to resume co-operation with the Government. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Johnson: While welcoming the action of the Arab leaders, does the Minister not think that Mr. Coutts has given a good lead in advocating the common roll electors' lists? Perhaps, when the Minister thinks a little longer about it, he will consider extending this lead into Kenya, where there is also a plural society.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always ready to listen and to learn, and I think that Mr. Coutts is a remarkable man.

Mr. Bevan: When the right hon. Gentleman says that copies of the Report are in the Library, has he any idea of the number of copies? Now and again it is almost like a secret service to try to get some of these documents.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry if that should be so. If at any time the right hon. Gentleman lets me know, I will always see that many more copies are available. If there are not sufficient available now, I will certainly add to them.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming the acceptance of the principle of the common roll generally in Zanzibar, may I ask whether, before a decision is reached, the right hon. Gentleman will examine the proposal to maintain racial group representation among the nominated members and whether he will take steps to eliminate this also?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think I should add to what I have said, at least until the Zanzibar Government and Legislative Council have expressed their own views.

Mr. Rankin: Why cannot we get the Report on the green form, just like the other Reports?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly consider that if there is sufficient desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Plant and Equipment (Export Trade)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will discuss the export of atomic energy plants and equipment with the Atomic Energy Authority and representatives of the British atomic energy industry in view of the need to compete with United States sales activity in the Commonwealth and other overseas markets.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): As I told the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) on 29th February, discussions have been going on for some time between the Atomic Energy Authority and representatives of the heavy electrical plant manufacturers to explore the possibilities of export trade in nuclear power reactors. I understand from my noble Friend the Lord President that the discussions, which have shown a substantial identity of view, are continuing and their scope is being widened.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the very real danger that we are falling behind the United States in this matter, can the Lord Privy Seal say whether we can expect more vigorous publicity from either the Government or the Atomic Energy Authority, and greater sales activity, particularly in Commonwealth countries, in these matters?

Mr. Butler: There is a reference to this point in the hon. Gentleman's next Question. I am satisfied that we are not doing quite so badly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In fact, we are making a considerable surge forward. I will, if I may, answer the specific points about publicity in reply to the hon. Gentleman's next Question.

Mr. Warbey: Why is the Atomic Energy Authority, which has built up a very well equipped and highly efficient production division, to be debarred from engaging in the export market?

Mr. Butler: I have referred to this matter before to the hon. Gentleman. We feel that the arrangements already in hand are the best.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of recent United States offer of material and technical assistance

to other countries, and of the increasing competition developing in this field, what further action the Government is taking to tell the world of Britain's atomic energy achievements and to develop the export of the products of the British atomic energy industry.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Considerable publicity is being given to the United Kingdom's achievements and potentialities in this field, and technical assistance is being afforded to other countries. The United Kingdom has already established a substantial trade in the export of isotopes and new types of instruments for use in industry and research. The commercial development of nuclear power is, however, still in its infancy and there is unlikely to be a substantial demand for, or export of, power reactors for some years. My noble Friend and the Atomic Energy Authority are already giving consideration to long-term plans in this field, with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether our position is affected by the fact that we cannot make available the raw materials for this production, whereas the United States are in a position to do so? Could we not have some collaboration on that side of the matter?

Mr. Butler: I will discuss the question of collaboration with my noble Friend and with the Prime Minister. This is an important matter. I understand that there are adequate supplies of natural uranium but the supplies of enriched uranium are limited, and will have to be shared between defence and civil needs.

Mr. Stokes: In support of what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal can assure us that representations will be made to the United States Government to let us have a ton or two of enriched uranium, or uranium 235, or whatever they call it, because they have plenty of it? It will make an enormous difference to our costs of production if we can get some now.

Mr. Butler: That was why I distinguished between natural uranium and enriched uranium. While I cannot give a definite answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I will bear the point in mind and will discuss it.

Mr. Smithers: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, whatever the United States may propose to do, the suggestions of the O.E.E.C. Working Party for the atomic energy industry offer an admirable outlet for the industry of this country?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, but that raises the question of the recent discussions in Paris of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of Euratom, and I would rather not enlarge upon those at the present time.

Mr. Beswiek: If the position is—and the Lord Privy Seal is now admitting it to be so—that the United States' sales point is their ability to make available suitable fuel for the reactors, ought not that to be a reason why we should look at the division of our product as between civil and military needs to see whether we cannot release rather more for civil purposes?

Mr. Butler: I did raise, as the hon. Member will have observed, the difficulty of allocation between the two needs, civil and defence. We have these constantly under review. I will pay particular attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that under the arrangements made by the United States, a nation cannot be supplied with uranium if it is engaged in making atomic weapons? Have the Government approached the United States Government to see whether this restriction can be removed?

Mr. Butler: I would desire notice of that important question so that I could give a considered answer.

State and Private Industry

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now publish, in a White Paper or otherwise, full details of the terms of the agreements made between the Atomic Energy Authority and Associated Electrical Industries, excepting only details the disclosure of which would prejudice the future commercial dealings of the authority or the company, or would be contrary to the interests of national security.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have already given the hon. Member, in my reply on 22nd February, details of the terms on which the Authority will supply Associated

Electrical Industries, Ltd., with nuclear fuel. Since full information about the type of reactor which the company intend to construct has already been published, notably at the Geneva Conference last August, the question of charging for information does not arise. Payment for the use of patented inventions will depend on the extent to which patents owned by the Authority are in fact used.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very disappointing in view of the fact that on an earlier occasion he promised to give us all the information he had? Why should we have to turn to the Press to get such information as that it is a Merlin or swimming pool type of reactor of a capacity of 1,000–5,000 kw. and that it will remain in the private ownership of the company concerned? Why should not all these details be given in full to the House?

Mr. Butler: The position is that on the date I have mentioned, in col. 380–382 of Vol. 549 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I gave the hon. Member details of the arrangements for the loan of nuclear fuel between the Atomic Energy Authority and the company in question. Today I have given an answer about charging, which was the extra point raised by the hon. Member. On his third point concerning the swimming pool reactors, I understand that information on this matter has been widely published. Therefore, I did not feel that on either of the three aspects there was very much I could add apart from bringing them together in the synthesis which I have attempted to do now.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make an order under Section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, to provide that the acquisition, production, or use by private industry of nuclear fuels or of plant for the production or use of atomic energy shall be permitted only under official licence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My noble Friend the Lord President does not at present intend to make an order under Section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946. He is satisfied that any necessary control can be secured either through the Atomic Energy Authority's monopoly of fissile material or through the exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948.

Mr. Warbey: Was it not the clear intention of the Atomic Energy Act that as soon as atomic energy development began to spread beyond the sphere of public activity, a licensing system should be introduced? As provision exists in the Act to make an order to this effect, why do not the Government now do it, in view of the fact that a number of agreements have already been entered into with private firms?

Mr. Butler: The powers were taken in the Act, very wisely, in case of abuse, but as the present desire is for expansion, both under the Authority and under private industry, my noble Friend sees no reason to use those powers at present. In regard to safe construction and operation, powers are available under Section 55 of the 1948 Act, to which I have referred, and it may well be that we shall have to examine the extent to which we have to use those powers; but in the view of my noble Friend, the power contained in Section 10 is not at present necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Rubber Industry

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what effects the production of synthetic rubber in this country is expected to have upon the chief article of export from Malaya to Great Britain.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provided that the efficiency of the Malayan rubber industry can be maintained and improved, I do not expect that the industry will be affected by the proposed production of synthetic rubber in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that last year we purchased 13,000 tons of synthetic rubber from America, that we are arranging to produce 64,000 tons yearly and that this is bound to affect the rubber industry of Malaya? Will he look at the problem with a view to ensuring that the rubber industry is not affected?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not believe that that is so. The proposed output is less than 6 per cent. of the present world output of synthetic rubber. The hon. Member himself yesterday asked:

If it is necessary to purchase synthetic rubber, why cannot we produce it in this country more than we do?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 995.]
That is what we are now setting out to do.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that America has jumped up the production of synthetic rubber by 350,000 tons a year to 1 million tons? That is bound to have an effect on the rubber industry of the world.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I am very conscious of my obligations in regard to the natural rubber industry of Malaya. I discussed the matter with the Chief Minister of the Federation when he was over here, and I am glad to know that manufacturers' representatives will shortly visit the Federation to discuss rubber matters with the Rubber Producers' Council. This is eminently a sphere where the producers of both synthetic and natural rubber can, with Government aid, work out a proper arrangement.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions the Chief Minister of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, had with him on the raising of the embargo on the export of rubber from Malaya to China during his recent visit; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on 14th February.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that Ceylon is sending 60,000 tons of rubber to China, while no export from Malaya is allowed, thus taking the trade away from Malaya? Will he take steps to ensure that Malaya as well as Ceylon gets an opportunity to export to China?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I also discussed this matter with the Chief Minister of the Federation, and we both agreed that we would not talk about it publicly at this stage.

Hospital Charges

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies into how many classes the patients in the hospitals in Singapore are divided for the purpose of


calculating charges for treatment; what is the weekly charge for each class; and what percentage of the beds is free.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the Answer to this Question is rather long and includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the average wage of the Malayan worker is less than 2 dollars a day and that the charges for treatment in hospital are much more than that? Will he see that something is done to provide free treatment for the workers in the hospitals in Malaya and Singapore?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the hon. Member is also aware that 93·5 per cent. of all the hospital beds in Singapore are free of all charges.

Following is the Answer:

For the purpose of calculating charges for treatment in Singapore hospitals patients are divided into four classes, namely:

First Class A, First Class B, Second Class and Third Class. Patients in the Third Class pay no fees of any kind.

Ward charges per diem for patients in the first three classes are as follows:


—
First Class A
First Class B
Second Class



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
s.
d.


In ordinary and maternity hospitals
1
17
4
1
8
0
9
4


In mental hospitals
1
3
4

14
0
7
0

Patients in the First and Second Classes are also liable to pay specialist treatment fees per diem as follows:

First Class A and B, 11s. 8d., with minimum of £1 3s. 4d. and maximum of £5 16s. 8d.

Second Class, 2s. 4d., with minimum of 4s. 8d. and maximum of £1 3s. 4d.

In addition, these patients are liable to pay other specialist fees for operations, accouchement, X-rays, etc.

93·5 per cent. of hospital beds in Singapore are free of all charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (FRANCHISE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Syrians are not permitted to vote in local government elections under the new franchise regulations in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This matter was recently debate in the Sierra Leone Legislative Council, which decided that no aliens should be entitled to vote in local government elections but that there should be no restriction in this respect on racial grounds against any persons born in the territory. Legislation will shortly be introduced to give effect to this decision.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that Syrians who are naturalised or born in Sierra Leone will be entitled to the franchise?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): It is my duty to detain the Committee to point out that in one respect this Clause differs from similar Clauses in previous Consolidated Fund Bills which the Committee has been accustomed to pass. If hon. Members will look at subsection (3) they will find that on this occasion the provision which has hitherto restricted to 3 per cent. the rate of interest payable on Ways and Means advances is omitted. The Clause deals with the Floating Debt, and far and away the greater part of that is in Treasury bills. A small part is normally in day-to-day ways and means advances, as they are called, and hitherto there has been this restriction, on the smaller part but not on the larger part, to a maximum rate of interest of 3 per cent. That restriction is omitted from this Bill, and it is done for a good and substantial reason.
At present, the current market rate for day-to-day money is above 3 per cent. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect to borrow money at 3 per cent. or under. If, therefore, we are to continue to enact a maximum rate of 3 per cent. on ways and means advances the result will be that we shall not get the money, and instead we shall have to borrow on Treasury bills at a rate which is now over 5 per cent. Therefore, this restriction, which has been in former Acts, designed, no doubt, to save money, would cost money if we were to retain it now. For those reasons, the Government have decided on this occasion, to present the Bill without that restriction in it.
I felt it was obligatory on me to hold up the proceedings of the Committee to explain this because the Consolidated Fund Bill is unlike other Bills in that it

cannot be presented until just before it is discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. That, I thought, put a special obligation on me to inform the Committee of this change. In addition, I took the step of informing right hon. Gentlemen opposite, before the publication of the Bill, that this was our intention, because it would have been unreasonable to have asked the Committee to agree to a change like this point blank. I trust I have made out the case that we are acting reasonably in omitting the restriction on this occasion.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I do not seek to detain the Committee long on this point since there is a very important debate to follow, and the time for that is already somewhat limited—

Mr. Ede: Not to before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Wilson: —but since, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, this involves a breach of precedent, which goes back to 1941, I think, it is only right that the Committee should have an opportunity of considering it. As he said, the Consolidated Fund Bill cannot be printed until after Report of the Estimates. That means that the Committee might have had no opportunity to spot this change in practice but for the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in informing some of us and in informing the Committee now.
This small but significant change shows what a tangled web Government weave when they try to control the whole economy by means of the monetary weapon, and the monetary weapon alone. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how much borrowing on ways and means at a rate above 3 per cent. will cost the taxpayer. Clearly, since, as he said, ways and means advances are only a small part of the total borrowing in the period covered by the Bill, it will be only a small part of the total cost to the taxpayer of the Government's action in raising the Bank Rate. It may be difficult for him to say how much it is, but I hope that at some stage he will tell us a bit more about that.
He made it clear that he could have borrowed the whole amount on Treasury bills, the rate of interest on which is not controlled and has not been controlled by


any provisions of the Consolidated Fund Acts. The right hon. Gentleman rather sounded as though he was taking a little credit to himself and the Government for having saved the taxpayers' money by this alteration in the form of the Bill. To use that sort of argument is to behave rather like a cutpurse who stops a passerby and robs him of all his possessions, but finally gives him his bus fare home and then expects to receive gratitude as a result. Here the Government are increasing the cost very considerably to the taxpayer by the rise in the Bank Rate and trying to save a very small amount of it by enabling the Government to borrow on ways and means advances perhaps at 4¾ per cent. or some such figure instead of borrowing on Treasury bills at 5¼ per cent.
What he has not explained—and I do not press for an answer now—is why he has not followed the precedent which, I think, was followed before 1941. Before 1941, there was an interest limitation in the Consolidated Fund Acts. I think it was at that time 5 per cent. Since 1941, it has been 3 per cent. We understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot now continue with the 3 per cent. figure, but we do not understand why he has not put in some other figure, such as 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. That might have been more in line with the current Bank Rate.
Does this mean, perhaps, that the Government intend to raise the Bank Rate still higher during the currency of this period of borrowing? My own view would be that the Government do not at present intend so to act because they never know more than a day or two ahead what they are going to do, so I should not imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to take action of that kind, though it is probably true that the Chancellor has it in mind that he may have to.
It would have been better, I think, had the Government, in making this breach with practice, set some ceiling figure, because for all we know we are letting the taxpayer in for paying 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. or whatever figure it may be to which the Chancellor next chooses to raise the Bank Rate, after his interim Budget of 17th April breaks down and he has to take more emergency action.
I shall not detain the Committee further, but, in appealing to my hon. Friends not to protract the debate, unless they feel especially moved by this matter, I feel I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that we shall reserve our right to debate the whole question of the cost of the higher interest rates when we consider what I may call the interim Budget of 17th April. I think that that is a better occasion for debating this whole question than this afternoon, because then we can look at the picture as a whole. Already there is an increase of about £100 million in the annual interest payment compared with 1951. It is a fantastic sum when one bears in mind the recent mean economies of the Government which are causing so much hardship.
If we are to let this matter go this afternoon without further comment, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he will give an undertaking that between now and the Budget debate we shall have information, or will ask the Chancellor, when he opens his Budget on 17th April, that sufficient information will be available to the House on that occasion, to enable us to debate the consequences of these increases in interest rates to the fullest possible extent. In particular, we should like an estimate from the Government of what the cost of servicing the National Debt is likely to be in the financial year which we shall shortly be entering. If the right hon. Gentleman can give an undertaking that we can have a much fuller debate of this very important point on that occasion, I think that the Committee will be willing to let the point go until then.

Mr. H. Brooke: As far as I know, a wide debate on these matters will be in order in the usual days' debates following the Budget. I will certainly bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about his desire for further information and for a full opportunity to pursue these matters. I am obliged to him for not holding up the proceedings on the Bill now. All I would add is that anyone who drew any conclusion from Clause 3 (3) about the future course of the Bank Rate would be rather unwise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC SERVICES (SECURITY)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I rise to ask the Government some questions and, I hope, also to initiate a general discussion upon Cmd. 9715, entitled "Statement on the Findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors on Security." As the House knows, the origins of this Report lie in the debate we had in the House on 7th November, on what is now very widely known as the Burgess and Maclean case.
That resulted in a Committee of Privy Councillors, representing both sides of Parliament, engaging upon an inquiry into security procedures under the following terms of reference:
To examine the security procedures now applied in the public services and to consider whether any further precautions are called for and should be taken.
Although that is the very recent origin of this Report, this is only the latest chapter in what is now the lengthening story of the attempts of successive Governments since the war to safeguard the security of the State in a manner consistent with the preservation of the essential liberties of the individual.
Prior to this Report, the last major stage in the story was the announcement made in the House in March, 1948, by the then Prime Minister, my noble Friend Earl Attlee, as he now is, when he made his statement about the introduction of new security procedures which the Government of the day thought necessary as a result of the security dangers which had become evident following the end of the Second World War. We all know that since the war there have been some notable cases of the failure of our security arrangements to detect subversion or espionage until fairly late in the activities of the person concerned. There is, therefore, with that knowledge in the background, fairly general acceptance by

the public that we must be constantly reviewing our security arrangements.
On the other hand, we all realise, too, that the introduction of more effective security arrangements has been making some inroads upon our democratic tradition. That is recognised in specific terms in this latest Report, where it is stated that the Conference of Privy Councillors
recognise that some of the measures which the State is driven to take to protect its security are in some respects alien to our traditional practices.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: A masterpiece of understatement.

Mr. Younger: One of the things I want to discover is to what extent it is an understatement. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some reassurance.
Whether it is or not, that frank admission in the White Paper is sufficient to justify the deep concern of Parliament every time a tightening of security procedure is proposed. It also justifies our asking today what the attitude of the Government is towards the problem and to warn them that we shall exercise the very closest vigilance on the way they carry out the principles laid down in the Report.
When we debate a security failure, such as the Burgess and Maclean case, the tendency is for there to be some atmosphere of alarm about security and to demand, as was the case during that debate, that some further powers should be taken, whereas today, when we come to debate the security measures themselves, I think that we shall find that the emphasis tends to be the other way—on the necessity for safeguards for the liberty of the subject. That indicates that in this difficult matter there can only be a compromise between these conflicting considerations.
I do not know whether this commands general agreement, but I believe that we have no reason to be ashamed of the compromise which we have struck on this matter in recent years. All of us have experienced about 40 years of world war and revolution with men's minds all over the world being torn between conflicting ideologies. We have lived in an age which was described by Miss Rebecca West a year or two ago as "The Age of Treason," yet I think it is commonly


believed that, despite that, our public service is not riddled with disloyalty.
I think that all of us in the House believe that in the overwhelming majority our public servants, of all ranks, are loyal and reliable citizens. No doubt it may be said that that situation has been secured at a cost. There must have been some cost in the operation of our security measures to date. There must be some people with grievances, some no doubt with justifiable grievances, because there are uncertainties in this matter which seem to me inevitable. Nevertheless, both the officials who have operated the system and the public who play a very important part in security by their general attitude to the problems of espionage and subversion, both these categories, have, on the whole, kept their heads and shown considerable moderation.
When the system was tightened up in 1948 there was a debate in this House and anxieties were rightly expressed. I think I am right in saying, however, that in the eight years which have since elapsed there has been no really serious volume of complaint. There must have been individual cases of complaint, but I do not happen to have had any. Also, there may be some grievances unresolved, but the lack of any public difficulty of any kind shows that, on the whole, the compromise adopted has not been too unreasonable.
Some statistics were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in a Written Answer yesterday from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, indicating that the numbers of people in the higher grades of the Civil Service who have either been dismissed or moved, or who have resigned following the better security measures introduced eight years ago, have been small. However, those figures related only to higher grades and I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give us precise figures or a general indication of whether the number of people affected by the regulations have been also small in the lower grades.
We know that the public service is a pyramid, with relatively few people in the top grades and far more in the lower grades. There has often been a feeling that less care is taken in the individual

investigation of people in the lower grades. This may be inevitable perhaps because they are more numerous, and if there are injustices these are more likely to be at the lower end of the scale than at the top. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us the figures for persons affected in the lower grades are as encouraging as those for the higher grades, I shall be grateful.
Because I think that the compromise has worked well, I am glad that in the Report no major changes are demanded. Paragraph 8 states that the main conclusion of the Conference was
that there is nothing organically wrong or unsound
about the present arrangements, but the paragraph continues by stating that there are
certain recommendations, the purpose of which is to strengthen the system in some respects.
And adds that Her Majesty's Government have accepted them all.
I hope that those recommendations are purely procedural. They may be of a kind which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot reveal in public. I hope he can give us an assurance that there is nothing new and radical which has not been made public, and that it is true that in approving this Report we are not accepting any major changes in the system as we have known it up to date.
I am glad to note, also, that there is no demand for statutory powers. Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Report refer to the matter which was raised in the Burgess and Maclean debate, namely, whether new powers were required to prevent suspect persons from leaving this country. The conclusion of the Conference and of the Government is that no new statutory powers should be introduced. I accept the argument in those paragraphs and I am glad that this is the conclusion.
May I say, in passing, that I never really thought that the absence of powers was the basic difficulty even in the Burgess and Maclean case. It is true that there is a certain gap in the statutory powers of the police, for the very good reason that we do not allow persons to be held indefinitely without a charge. The real difficulty in these cases, however, is not the absence of legal power so much as the difficult question of knowing how long


it is wise to let investigations run when the evidence is incomplete; the desire not to alert somebody about whom inquiries are still in progress, and so on. I believe that none of those difficulties would have been affected even if the Government had decided that they would give additional statutory powers, as I am glad they are not doing.
It is important to realise, in this connection, that even if one is prepared to give the maximum of arbitrary powers to security authorities, as has been done in some other countries, this does not ensure 100 per cent. security. There could not be a better example than Nazi Germany, with the arbitrary powers given to the Gestapo and a society riddled with treason before the war and during the war and right to the finish. It is easy, by overdoing the granting of powers to security authorities, to damage the liberty of many innocent people without ensuring the apprehension and conviction of the few who are guilty.
Nevertheless, although no new powers are asked for, I think that there is one major new departure in this Report. This arises from the mere fact of committing to print and putting into an official document, a Government White Paper, a number of general propositions about security which are very wide in their character and capable of very varying application. I feel that there is some danger that this White Paper might be regarded as a kind of charter of what may legitimately be done in the name of security. A practice might arise of people saying that anything which is covered by one of these general phrases is, ipso facto, legitimate. An appeal may be made to this document in many cases where it is not appropriate. I do not think that this is a fit document to be used for any such purpose.
There are at least three major reasons for my saying that. The first is that this is not a full Report of the Conference of Privy Councillors. It is a Government statement based on the full Report which was submitted to the Government by the Privy Councillors. While I have no doubt that the Government have done their best to balance it, to reflect the attitude of the Privy Councillors the fact remains that this is only a potted edition of some parts of the full Report. I am not complaining about this, because quite clearly,

the House expected some report from the Government on the outcome of the deliberations of the Conference.
The second reason why I should not like to see this White Paper used in the way I have suggested is that by its terms of reference it is strictly limited in its scope. The Report relates to security procedure in the public services and to nothing else, and it would be dangerous to try to apply its wide generalisations in any other connection. I hope I shall not be thought to be unnecessarily introducing any party point—because that is not my intention—if I call the attention of the House to the fact that during the recent debate on Cyprus the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred to one paragraph of this Report on a topic completely divorced from anything which the Privy Councillors were considering.
It is not part of my business today to say whether the sentence quoted by the right hon. Gentleman from paragraph 16, about the possibility of revealing evidence, was apt to his argument or not. It is a bad practice, however, if people get into the habit of quoting this document as though it were the British bible on security. It is not. If it is accepted by this House, as I think it will be, it is accepted on the assumption that these general phrases will be applied only in this narrow scope—that they relate to the employment of Government servants in the handling of secret information and to nothing else.
The third reason why I do not want to see this White Paper regarded as a document of general authority is that the generalisations in it are necessarily so vague that in themselves they carry very slender guarantees, if any guarantees at all, of the liberty of the subject, and that everything depends upon the way in which they are applied. In fact, in this work, general rules, general statements about the class of person who may be regarded as less than reliable, can never be a substitute for the exercise of intelligence. They can never be a substitute for discriminating knowledge on the part of the investigating authorities and for the readiness of Departmental heads and Ministers to take the very worrying and difficult decisions which they have to do in every individual case. Standing by themselves, these general statements are


dangerous. I shall examine some of them in a moment.
I have read one or two letters in the Press from people, writing with the very best intentions, who are worried by this document, suggesting very precise and concrete safeguards which should have been in the White Paper. Most of them are under a misapprehension about the real problem here. The intrinsic difficulty of the problem of security lies in the fact that, unlike the operation of the criminal law, we are not concerned with convicting someone on a precise offence, in which case we demand proof beyond reasonable doubt. What we are seeking to do is to take preventive action which, we hope, we are taking before any precise offence has been committed.
The information on which we act is in most cases, I think, somewhat less than conclusive. Perhaps mainly for the reason that it is not information about a precise offence but information about the much vaguer topic of whether a person is of a type who might be likely to prove unreliable in certain hypothetical circumstances, it is very much more difficult to have conclusive evidence than to obtain proof of a specific criminal offence.
There is the additional difficulty, although I suppose it sometimes applies under the criminal law, too, that the evidence cannot be produced. People sometimes comfort themselves by saying that, after all, it is quite unlike a criminal trial. There is no inherent right on the part of anybody to be employed on highly secret matters. II is not a basic human right to be allowed to handle top secret documents, so one can be much more cavalier about it. It is true that merely to transfer someone from secret work to other work is not like sending him to prison, but it must be remembered that it may ruin a career just as effectively. Therefore, the House must take the matter very seriously.
I want to say a few words about certain of the points of doubt and danger which seem to me to arise here. The first issue that I want to discuss is what is commonly called "guilt by association." That is a phrase which has become familiar to most of us in reading the accounts of the security troubles which have occurred in the United States and the campaigns led by Senator McCarthy.
This is not entirely a new thing to introduce into our security procedure. I would refer to one sentence used by Earl Attlee on the occasion in 1948 which I mentioned. Having discussed the dangers arising from the double allegiance felt by many Communists and, at any rate potential, Fascists, Earl Attlee said
…the only prudent course to adopt is to ensure that no one who is known to be a member of the Communist Party, or to be associated with in in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his or her reliability is employed in connection with work, the nature of which is vital to the security of the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1704.]
There was the doctrine of guilt by association being introduced.
A good deal more precision is given to it in the White Paper. For instance, paragraph 4 says:
This risk from Communists is not, however, confined to party members, either open or underground, but extends to sympathisers with Communism.
That is a much vaguer conception.
Paragraph 6 says:
One of the chief problems of security today is thus to identify the members of the British Communist Party, to be informed of its activities and to identify that wider body of those who are both sympathetic to Communism or susceptible to Communist pressure and present a danger to security.
I would say, in passing, that I find that a rather oddly expressed sentence, and I should like some comment upon it from the Home Secretary, if possible. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about those who are sympathetic to Communism or susceptible to Communist pressure. He then says that they must present a danger to security, as though there was some quite separate consideration, apart from sympathy with Communism or susceptibility to Communist pressure, which constituted grounds for the decision that they were dangerous to security.
Finally, and perhaps still more worthy of our consideration, there are the sentences in paragraphs 14 and 15. Paragraph 14 says:
The Conference also makes a series of recommendations which turn on the risk presented by those in regard to whom there is no evidence that they are themselves members of the Communist Party, but evidence exists of Communist sympathies or of close association with members of the Communist Party.


Paragraph 15 continues:
The Conference is of the opinion that in deciding these difficult and often borderline cases, it is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual. They recommend that an individual who is living with a wife or husband who is a Communist or a Communist sympathiser may, for that reason alone, have to be moved from secret work, and that the same principle should be applied in other cases of a like nature.
The House will agree that that opens a door very wide indeed, for it relates not only to Communist sympathies on the part of the person under investigation but association with somebody—not only somebody who is a party member—who may have Communist sympathies.

Mr. S. Silverman: And without the second requirement of the provision in paragraph 6 to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has already drawn attention.

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to recognise that a very dangerous system could be operated while still remaining within the terms of the paragraphs that I have quoted. One of the things that we want from the Government today is an assurance about their intentions in this matter.
It is an extremely difficult thing—no doubt some of us have had sufficient experience of security work, during the war if at no other time, to know this—to reach with confidence any conclusion about people's sympathies, for they change from time to time and have a different significance from one period to another as political situations change.
We all know, for instance, that there are at any given moment many topics upon which Communist Party policy happens to coincide with the policies of many non-Communist bodies. Perhaps the most striking instance at present is that throughout almost the whole of the Arab world it is often impossible to distinguish a Communist agitator from a nationalist agitator. They may, essentially, be miles apart in motives, but the propaganda which they put out and the causes which they advocate are for the moment identical.
We have had a lot of experience of that kind in this country in the past.

There has often been a suspicion in the past that the difficulties of distinguishing a Socialist—perhaps particularly a Socialist of rather Left-wing views or of a rather agitational temperament—from a Communist have proved too great for the authorities. When the matter was debated in 1948 references were made by Conservative hon. Members, then in Opposition, to an occasion when Earl Attlee, then Prime Minister, gave in Spain what was described as the Communist salute. The person who raised that matter was unaware that the Communist salute in Spain at that time was also the salute of all the elements making up the Republican side in Spain, and that there was no necessary Communist connotation to it at all. I am sure that one could find many other examples where this confusion is likely to arise.
When we come to the question of family connections, we are on very dangerous ground indeed. I suppose that all of us agree that if one came to the conclusion that a woman was very deep in the councils of the Communist Party and that she might be a grave danger if employed in the service of the State, it would be only a matter of common sense for one to have some doubts about her husband living with her in the same house.

Mr. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend must have a very curious conception of relationships within families if he thinks it is possible, as a matter of common sense, absolutely to ignore family relationships of this kind.
This is not a thing newly recognised in this Report; it was also recognised in 1948. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was at the Treasury, he was questioned on this subject and replied quite simply, and, I think, very wisely, that when considering cases of civil servants who might have Communist wives each case must be taken upon its merits and that he was not prepared to give any answer of general application.
I think that that is the sound line to adopt, though, goodness knows, it is difficult enough to carry it out in each individual case in practice. I would not like to think that the rather greater detail which is entered into in this Report compared with the statement in 1948 indicates


that some sort of overall rule has now been adopted. I would like an assurance that in these family matters every case will be treated on its own merits.
At the end of paragraph 15, there is the slightly worrying phrase:
…the same principle should be applied in other cases of a like nature.
That means cases of a like nature with those of wife or husband. I do not know how far the Government intends that phrase to extend. Does it include brothers and sisters? Does it include lodgers? I know it is very difficult for the Government to give a precise answer, but I hope that at least they will give us an idea of their approach to this problem.
The second major point to which I want to refer relates to the problem of character defects as affecting security. This is dealt with mainly in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the Report—what may be called the relation to security risks of defects of character and conduct. I suppose it is quite true, as is said here, that any defect of character or conduct may make a person somewhat more liable to Communist blackmail than an ordinary citizen. But I should have thought that, quite apart from the possibilities of blackmail, this subject of defects of character is something which is relevant to the holding of all confidential posts, whether they be in defence Ministries, in the Treasury, or in private employment such as in the banks: you cannot ignore the question of whether a man is, generally speaking, of good character or not.
In the Civil Service, as elsewhere, the problem of trying to ensure that you do not have people of bad character employed in your organisation is really not so much a question of making intelligence inquiries through security authorities as a question of good personnel management and good human relations. I believe that in no organisation, whether it be in industry, in trade, or in the Civil Service, can one have good morale if people do not know the men and women with whom they are working on a human level, and are not in a position to judge them as one citizen should judge another.
I do not think there need be any snooping or spying on one another in this at all, if the human relationships in the organisation are good. Of course, there are certain types of work where there is a very high degree of secrecy where, if

there is a slight doubt in the mind of a superior about the promotion of one of his subordinates, the superior may inevitably have to give the work, as it were, the benefit of the doubt.
One really cannot make a comprehensive list of the sort of vices which are relevant to security. There is some sort of list given here in paragraph 10; it speaks of serious failings such as drunkenness, addiction to drugs, homosexuality, or any loose living. Those are not, and do not claim to be, an exhaustive list, but I do hope that the Government will not make the mistake of thinking that the sins which affect security are only what I might call the more Rabelaisian sins. I can think of other defects of character just as likely to make somebody liable to blackmail or pressure from a source as the ones mentioned there. For instance, I would have thought that a more usual and just as important matter was being seriously in debt.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Member might carry this argument even further. Often the most effective workers in this field where one considers whether there is a threat to security are people with very strong characters, though misguided.

Mr. Younger: That is a fair point. One of the real problems necessarily is that some of the people liable to be most dangerous are idealists of the highest personal character and integrity who happen to be serving a different loyalty.
The only one of these defects mentioned in the Report on which I want to say a word is homosexuality, not because I think it is given undue prominence here but because, in my view, it has been given undue prominence in investigations in the United States, where it has been treated as something on quite a different plane in security from almost any other form of character defect.
I do not believe that that is right. I believe many of those who talk as though they thought it were right are really, in the words of Samuel Butler, trying to
Compound for sins they are inclined to By damning those they have no mind to.
It is worth reflecting, also, that in so far as there may be something to be said about homosexuality being more of a security risk than other defects, the reason lies probably in the very curious state of


the criminal law relating to homosexuality, which is something to which I hope the House will be giving attention before we are very much older.
On this matter of character defects and the obligation of Departmental chiefs to know about their staffs, I hope the Government will be able to tell us something about the type of directive they are proposing to give. It is clear from the Report that they are aware that there is a danger of tale bearing and malicious gossip. If they emphasise, as they do, this responsibility resting on Departmental chiefs, they must have something in mind. If the Home Secretary can clarify it for us, I shall be very glad.
I want to emphasise how important it is that we should narrow as far as possible the field for inquiry and action in these matters. In paragraph 9 of the Report it is recognised that there are specially sensitive areas in the public service which have to be watched more carefully than others—the Foreign Service, defence, the atomic energy organisation. It is immensely important that we should limit the practice of what is called "positive vetting" and detailed inquiries sufficiently to make the process manageable for the services involved.
I believe that nothing is so much the enemy of intelligent work in these matters as mass operations. The larger the number of people the security services are called upon to investigate, the less can they ensure that every case is looked at by a highly qualified person, and the more difficult it is to give sufficient time to each inquiry.
In my view, what went wrong principally in the United States in this whole matter of security, was that they did not succeed in limiting the field in which it was essential to have a very strict measure of security; it was allowed to spread to the whole public service and far outside even to the point where actors could not get minor parts in films because they were thought at some time to have shown some Communist sympathy.
I think we ought so far as possible to avoid dismissals, particularly if there is any doubt in any case, and to use, instead, the procedure of transfer to other work. There is a reference in paragraph 13 of the Report to the possibility of blocking

promotion. On that, I would like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he envisages that the appeal procedure which is applicable to people who are asked to resign or who are to be dismissed will also be available to those whose promotion is blocked.
I can conceive of very unhappy situations where it might be decided that the proper course to take was not dismissal or resignation, but that the person concerned could not be trusted above a certain level in the service and, therefore, the full procedure might never be put into operation. What would happen, however, is that promotion boards would never recommend him. I think it should be an instruction in the public service that if a clear decision is made that somebody is not to be promoted for this type of reason, the appeals procedure should be made available to him also.
I want the Home Secretary to tell us whether, in his view, the appeals procedure has worked well. I understand that he is not proposing to introduce anything which has not already been in operation for several years. At the end of paragraph 16 there is a reference to the widening of the terms of reference. Can he tell us what that means? Is it only a reference to the fact that in paragraph 21 it is proposed to extend the appeal procedure in some form or other to persons outside Government service who are engaged on Government contracts? If that is all it means, we welcome it.
I certainly welcome an extension of some kind of appeal procedure to industry, where industrial firms are working on matters involving State secrets. It is not really clear and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not himself yet clear exactly how he is to do it. Can he tell us whether, in the case of persons not employed in the Government service, it is intended that a Minister shall be the person on whom lies the responsibility for the decision? In the Civil Service itself it is the Minister who is responsible, but if the procedure is extended to people for whom he is not directly responsible, will he be answerable?

Mr. Charles Pannell: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that we are talking about a very restricted field. It is the easiest thing in the world for the upper ranks to find fault with the work of the craftsmen on the factory


floor and to get rid of him for the flimsiest of reasons on the mere suspicion that he may be married to a member of the Communist Party, or living in sin with a woman who is a member of the Communist Party. I hope that my right hon Friend will appreciate and emphasise that this classic defence of liberty should be extended to the fitter on the factory floor and the labourer on the broom, and that it is not so extended at present. There can be the resort to all sorts of curious subterfuges to get rid of people on the flimsiest sort of suspicion. No amount of denial from the benches opposite will get over that difficulty.

Mr. Younger: I agree that there is a very grave danger. I was about to say that the number of persons involved, that is to say, employed in industry in relation to Government work, is probably far greater than the total number of people covering the whole of the Civil Service. 'Precisely because they are very often people in a humble station of life, they feel that they can easily be dismissed. They are not in established employment, and it may be possible to turn them out at relatively short notice, with practically no reason being given.
I recollect that the first time this topic was raised in its present form was on the occasion of some dismissals from a Royal Dockyard, in 1937. Reference to that was made in our 1948 debates. In its own way this is quite as important, and in some ways more important, than the many branches of the Civil Service, and I welcome the fact that appeal procedure of some kind is to be extended into this sphere. I hope that the Home Secretary can tell us a little more about his intention.
Those are the points I want to put to the Government. This is a distasteful subject, because it involves investigation of our fellow citizens and action which, in some cases, is certainly believed by the victim to be victimisation. But we all know that the danger exists and we must attempt to meet it rationally and efficiently. I believe that nothing can be more certain than that an inefficient security system which is not properly and rationally supported by the Government merely invites occasional glaring failures which excite public alarm and lead to spy mania and witch hunting which we saw in the United States.
Much of what happened in the United States could have been avoided had there been in existence a reasonable security system in the years before agitation broke out. We are prepared to support the Government in tackling this problem so far as necessary and no more; but we will, of course, watch with the closest vigilance how these procedures operate in practice, because some of the provisions to whose danger I have called attention are clearly open to abuse. What we ask the Home Secretary today is that he should give us all possible supplementary information and, above all, evidence that the Government are as conscious as are we on this side of the possible pitfalls and that they are properly concerned for the rights of the individual citizens.

4.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I could not help feeling that the speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) was slightly overweighted on the side of the freedom of the individual, important as that is. There is one thing which is even more important, and that is the safety of the country. I very much agree with him that we need not more powerful but more efficient security services. I could wish that he had dealt with that aspect of the matter rather more than merely with the question, important though it is, of the freedom of the individual.
The right hon. Gentleman also said, as, of course, we fully recognise, that the recommendations in the White Paper and, indeed, all the matters which it discusses, are but a very small part of the subjects with which the Conference of Privy Councillors dealt. It is perfectly obvious that for security reasons that must be the case. The only thing that the White Paper could have done for the people of the country was to give them some reassurance that the tragic events with which it deals are not likely to occur again. The public would have been more satisfied if they could have had that reassurance, even the reassurance that the State was not more gravely threatened than it had been before.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 8 of the White Paper, which says:
Against the background of this general analysis, of which only a very brief outline


has been given, the Conference address themselves to an examination of the Government's security arrangements. Their main conclusion is that there is nothing organically wrong or unsound about those arrangements.
"Organically" is a rather vague word. The one synonym which could be found in a dictionary would be "fundamentally." Are we to believe that our security arrangements and security services have been fundamentally sound? I want to suggest that they certainly have not.
Paragraph 4 of the White Paper very truly points out that our security services, since the the war, have been faced with a type of problem quite different from that which faced them previously. Previously, as paragraph 4 points out, they had mainly to deal with the person who might be called a professional spy, an enemy generally acting for gain of a monetary or some other kind.
Since 1945, we have had to deal with a quite different type of enemy, at any rate as a rule. That is the type of man who puts a loyalty to a political ideology before his loyalty to his country. He may be a member of such a party, he may be a fellow traveller, or he may be only a sympathiser, but he is the type of man with whom we have to deal. But that is not a matter on which our security services should have had to be instructed by the Conference of Privy Councillors. It is surely elementary and something which they should have realised themselves in 1945.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. and gallant Member not making much too much of this point? He is now suggesting that the security services had to be informed by the Conference of Privy Councillors of the issue to which he refers, but there can be no possible evidence of that. This is not a new issue. It goes back, beyond 1945, for at least twenty and possibly thirty years. There were people before the war who were very sincerely Nazi, and who fell into the category about which the hon. and gallant Member is talking.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I would not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. We have to deal with that type of agent in these days infinitely

more than was the case in 1945. Certainly, 1945 was a turning point, when there were some people whom the security services should have considered and not regarded in a complacent manner, as when Nazi Germany was the principal enemy. After 1945, when our potential enemy became Russia, the security services should have regarded them if not with suspicion, then at least with an inquiring eye.
However that may be, they did not appear to appreciate that point in 1945, and, worse than that, they appeared to be absolutely incapable of learning, despite the fact that they had had some very severe lessons, which surely should have taught them. I do not want to delay the House by inflicting on it the long history of these particular cases, but there were three of them—the three atomic scientists, Nunn May, Fuchs and Pontecorvo. These cases had occurred in 1945, 1949, and 1950 respectively, and the point about all of them was that they had one thing in common. A proper inquiry into the background of these three men would have revealed the fact that in all three cases they were all utterly unfitted for the positions which they held. So far as can possibly be seen from the inquiries made afterwards, results of which came to light in this House, no such proper inquiries were made at all.
The last of these cases occurred in 1950, the case of Professor Pontecorvo, which was the worst of all, only a comparatively short time before we had the Maclean and Burgess case. Even as a result of that, apparently, our security services had not learned their lesson, because we were told in the White Paper on the Burgess and Maclean case that, in January, 1949, it was known that there was a leakage from the Foreign Office to the Russians. But no inquiries were made about the antecedents of Maclean before he joined the Foreign Office. There may have been a very great number of suspects; I do not know.
We were then told in the White Paper in April, 1950, the following year, that the suspects had been narrowed down to only two or three. That was after 16 months of intensive inquiries, we must presume, and still, although Maclean was one of these two or three suspects, no


inquiries had been made into his antecedents. The following month the suspects had been narrowed to one—Maclean himself—and still no inquiries had been made. If they had been made, of course, they would have revealed the fact that he was a member of the Communist Party, and a well-known Communist sympathiser, only a very short time before he actually joined the Foreign Service. These inquiries were not made. The White Paper went on to tell us that, later, inquiries did reveal that fact after Maclean had left this country.
I would submit that, in view of these facts, it really is impossible to say that there is nothing organically wrong or unsound about our security arrangements. All I would ask of my right hon. and gallant Friend is this. Could we not have at least an assurance that a drastic overhaul of our security arrangements will be made, or rather, is now being carried out, to ensure that the people responsible for these lapses of security are not left—never mind whether they are in the upper or the lower grades—any more in positions in which they can let the country down in the same way again? I believe that if we can get this assurance from my right hon. and gallant Friend it will go further towards satisfying the people of this country than any questions of personal liberty and freedom not being interfered with, important as these are.
Finally, if we do get that assurance, we can at least feel that from now on, and as a result of these inquiries, we have reached a position when we have learned our lessons, albeit at such terrible cost to the nation.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: In the light of the traditional restraints which are laid upon a Member of this House when he first addresses it, it may seem a trifle strange to elect to speak on the subject of this debate—a subject which is fraught with possibilities of a highly contentious character. It is not, however, my intention to approach the subject in a highly contentious way, and if I should seem to err in that respect, I hope that I may have the indulgence of the House on the assurance that such will be completely unintentional on my part.
I desire only to draw the attention of the House to one or two considerations in

this matter which I think it is important should not be overlooked. I am facilitated in my approach by the circumstances of this debate, separated as it is by an interval of time since the matter was last discussed in this House, on 7th November last, for since then there has been the inquiry which the House itself quite properly asked for, and there has been time for reflection.
My main purpose in intervening in this debate is to make a very special plea for a dispassionate review of this problem with a sense of balance and a sense of proportion. What the House is now considering are not merely the circumstances associated with the Burgess and Maclean case, disturbing as they were—and one can appreciate that, when the matter was last debated, those disturbing revelations should have charged the atmosphere of debate with a degree of shock and anxiety—but the issue which we are discussing today is of wider character. It is not only Burgess and Maclean; it is not only the Foreign Office, detached to some extent and different as it is from the generality of Government Departments; but we are now considering recommendations which have a vital importance and effect upon a whole range of Government Departments, involving virtually the whole of the Civil Service.
I recognise, and in this I am sure that I echo the view of the overwhelming majority of civil servants themselves, who have indeed through their representative trade union bodies repeatedly made it abundantly clear, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will be aware, that they themselves recognise, the need—the unfortunate necessity in present circumstances—to ensure that the security arrangements are vigilant, effective and adequate.
The right of the State to protect itself against potential traitors is undeniable. In anything I say I do not seek to question that right. Nor do I seek to defend, excuse or condone those who, in abuse of their trust, are caught in acts of flagrant disloyalty. Nor, indeed, do I wish to make easier the path of those who may be tempted to follow their example. But I wish to urge on the House the necessity of recognising the extreme rarity of that type of case.
It may be true that security arrangements have not hitherto sufficed to avoid


some getting through the net. It is perhaps pertinent to say that other countries, whose security arrangements are much more severe, still have not found them sufficient to prevent some of their traitors—as they would think them—from getting through the net, and we, in our turn, have been only too glad to avail ourselves of the evidence provided by those traitors.
That there should be such cases is, in my submission, no ground whatever for extending security arrangements in the Civil Service, or in the public services generally, in such a way as to endanger the conditions of the whole, the majority of whom are loyal public servants. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could do greater damage, than to create, by what is said or done now, the impression that the Civil Service is riddled with Communist conspiracy, or overstocked with potential traitors, moral perverts and delinquents.
It has been my privilege to know the Civil Service and have a close association with it for nearly forty years. For thirty years of that time I was proud to serve as a member. Admittedly, I did not belong to the "upper crust," which is sometimes erroneously spoken of as though it constituted the whole of the Civil Service. Mine indeed was a very much more humble grade. I mention this personal aspect only to give point to the conviction and the assertion that the Civil Service consists of a body of men and women, the overwhelming majority of which has a high regard for its duty and its loyalty to the State. Those civil servants have a high regard for the good name of the service in which they serve, and when incidents of the kind of Burgess and Maclean occur, they are as wounded and hurt in their pride in their profession as is any hon. Member of this House.
It is this vast majority which tends—in the excitement, and in the more lurid aspects of the Press accounts, when incidents of this character occur—to be overlooked in our consideration. Security is a vital and important thing, but I submit it is no less important that what we do in this regard should take due cognisance of that vast majority. The morale of these people is important. They resent the suggestion that their service is

of the character that these more sensational events would suggest. They are restive under the demand that there should be ever increasing measures of security—and let us remind ourselves that this is the third operation since the end of the war.
I wish emphatically to say that this White Paper gives rise in my mind to quite serious misgivings. I appreciate that it does not purport to cover the whole of the Report of the Conference. In those circumstances, it may well be that it has suffered somewhat in the process of précis and paraphrase. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) alluded to some of the points, and I shall listen with great interest to the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on behalf of the Government. I wish only to refer to one or two points. According to the White Paper, the heads of Departments are to enjoin supervising officers as to the necessity of vigilance; of reporting what they know and can discover, not merely of the political associations of those in their charge, but of the personal character and life of those individuals.
These are all perfectly proper things about which a supervising officer should know something when judging the fitness of those who work under him. But when this is done under the impetus of special instructions under this particular heading, I suggest there is a very grave danger that that which starts off with the best of motives may degenerate into the kind of thing which has poisoned the atmosphere of the public services of other countries; and I am anxious that it should not happen in this country.
We see these words used, "loose living" and "association with Communists." I have never been able to understand what is meant by that latter phrase. Indeed, if it is to be taken at its literal face value, there would be precious few hon. Members of this House who would escape high suspicion. It is not a complete answer to the assertion that these provisions, pressed in this way, will give rise to tale bearing, and informing against colleagues, to say that the ultimate decisions are taken by Ministers themselves with the help of the three advisers.
I would not question for one moment the great care and impartiality with which the ultimate decisions are arrived at. But in many cases that is far too late. The damage has already been done. The poison in a man's life, both official and social, has already been introduced. The civil servant is suspended while his case is under review, and he is sent away on a period of leave. His neighbours whisper between themselves. This is not fanciful. I have handled some of the cases which have arisen in this connection, and I know what a damaging effect it can have on the minds of men whose only crime is that they thought there was reality in our principle of freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Paragraph 15 of the White Paper has already been referred to, but the last sentence is worth quoting again. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will address himself to that paragraph with the intention of giving a clear assurance about it. The paragraph states that "they"—that is the Privy Coun-cillors—
recommend that an individual who is living with a wife or husband who is a Communist or a Communist sympathiser may, for that reason alone, have to be moved from secret work, and that the same principle should be applied in other cases of a like nature.
That is a very dangerous doctrine. It opens up the most appalling and alarming Possibilities. It is one which, if it be implemented, must be implemented with the utmost care. I wish to know how far it is to extend.
It conjures up possibilities of this kind. A civil servant with long service and an impeccable official record may have a son or daughter who, in youthful indiscretion, and against parental desires, joins the Communist Party. Incidents of that kind will happen even in the best regulated of households. Is such an incident to make that civil servant suspect in his official conduct? Is that man not only to suffer opprobrium in the process of the investigation of his background but also to be caught under the equally nebulous and questionable paragraph which talks of the possibility of unfavourable effects upon an officer's promotion prospects?
I do not wish to weary the House, or to take advantage of its indulgence, by traversing all the points which raise serious doubts in this matter. The last

point to which I want to refer is in relation to the so-called appeal tribunal of three advisers. The White Paper recommends that its facilities should be extended to those who are affected by these processes outside Government employment. To my hon. Friends who may draw some comfort and reassurance from that recommendation, I would say that they should be cautious in their acceptance of it until they examine its effect.
I do not wish to say one word in criticism of the eminent gentlemen who constitute the tribunal. I have no shadow of doubt that they struggle hard, with complete impartiality, to be fair in all the cases which come before them. But there is one fact which hon. Members must remember. An unhappy officer may be innocent of any intention of acting disloyally; he may have been the victim of a whispered allegation by someone who has seen him talking to a Communist, or reading the Daily Worker, and has drawn the worst possible conclusion; or it may be that he is suspected of having associations which cast doubts upon his reliability. He may then elect to go before the tribunal. But he does not know upon what evidence the allegation is based; he is not allowed to know that evidence. What is more, he is not allowed any form of advocacy or representation.
I know that there are difficulties about the situation. The Civil Service trade unions have repeatedly pressed upon successive Governments the view that in these circumstances men who find themselves in such a situation, which may jeopardise the whole of their official careers or even bring them to an end, should have the opportunity of advice and representation by their appropriate trade union. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider that point. I submit that it constitutes a very serious deficiency in these arrangements.
Eloquent tribute is frequently paid to the Civil Service. It is often referred to—I think with justice—as the finest Civil Service in the world. If the tangible expression of that high regard is not as clearly evidenced in certain respects as it should be, I nevertheless hope that in this regard both this House and the Government will treat the Civil Service as if they really believed in that tribute. I say that because it is important to have


regard to a body of men and women who constitute an honourable profession; who are as loyal as any other section of the community, and are entitled, not merely on their own behalf, to expect the most meticulous care to be taken in this matter by the Government, as their employer, but also to expect the Government to set a standard and example in upholding the traditional concepts of human freedom and civil liberty which exist in this country.
If I have transgressed in any way, either through the length of my speech or in anything that I have said, I can only ask the House to pardon me. I have done so only because I should have regarded myself as lacking in my duty if I had not sought to speak thus for an honourable and loyal Civil Service.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I am extremely happy to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it affords me very considerable pleasure to be able to offer the congratulations of the House to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead). We heard from him one of the most remarkable maiden speeches which we have had the good fortune to hear within the lifetime of this Parliament. The hon. Member speaks with such an ease and assurance, and a knowledge of his subject, that bad he not told us that he was addressing the House for the first time, I should not have recognised his speech as a maiden speech.
The hon. Member follows a number of distinguished predecessors at Waltham-stow, West, and, therefore, carries a heavy responsibility. I would remind the House that both his immediate predecessors in due course made their way to the Upper House—and it may be that he will complete the hat trick. We shall all be very glad to hear the hon. Member speaking in this House upon any future occasion, and I hope that his promotion to the Upper Chamber will be long delayed.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) criticised the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) for having—as he put it—overweighted the importance of the liberty of the subject. I cannot subscribe to my hon. and gallant Friend's criticism. In my view,

it is impossible to overweight the importance of the liberty of the subject in a matter such as this. We in Parliament have no heavier responsibility than to ensure that as few inroads as possible are made into individual liberty. Our prime duty is to protect the individual against the Executive.
Therefore, in common with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, I view some of the statements in this White Paper with misgivings. It is a masterpiece of understatement to say that the procedure envisaged and involved is alien to our traditional principles. In many respects it runs counter to practices which have been built up in this country over hundreds of years, in the fight for liberty. We naturally regard these steps with alarm. Today, we have an increasing number of instances of decisions being made behind locked doors—decisions which affect one of our fellow subjects, very often without his even knowing what has been decided.
I want to examine one or two more of the sentences which occur in this White Paper. Paragraph 15 says:
…it is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
That is contrary to the long-established practice of giving the accused person the benefit of the doubt. It means that the balance is to be tilted against the individual.
While no one denies that the powers which are sought by the Executive in this White Paper are essential upon the grounds of security, it is absolutely vital that we should ensure that those powers are operated in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It does not come within the four walls of what I have always understood to be natural justice to tilt the balance against the individual. If there is any tilting to be done at all in the balancing or juggling, it should certainly not be against the individual. The scales of justice should weigh evenly, but if they are to be tilted they should not be tilted in favour of the Executive.
The White Paper goes on to say:
…in order not to imperil sources of information, decisions have sometimes to be taken without revealing full details of the supporting evidence.


That raises a number of difficult points. First, who decides whether or not it is a case which can be dealt with on the ordinary basis of evidence? If the matter is not properly safeguarded it will become a common practice not to bother about evidence at all, but always to shelter behind this idea that the sources cannot be revealed. In a large number of cases, it simply is not true. There are many cases where it is quite possible to reveal sources of information or to give evidence without endangering the security of the State.
Dozens of cases were tried during the war, in both civil and military courts, where the sources of information were given in evidence; some of them were tried at the Old Bailey with a jury, so that the twelve members of the jury went at large into the world afterwards knowing perfectly well what had happened, and in most of those cases never was there any question of not producing the sources of information. Indeed, as they were dealt with under the ordinary processes of criminal law, the sources of information had to be disclosed. In a great number of cases it can be done without danger. I agree that there are cases in which it cannot be done, but it should not be thought to become the common practice that because this sort of rule exists, every case should he dealt with on the basis of not revealing sources of information.
On this paragraph, I am concerned about taking cases as proved against a man on standards which would not be accepted in a court of law. Again, one agrees that there may be cases in which that is essential, but they must be kept to the very minimum, and wherever the ordinary standards which would be acceptable to a court of law could be adopted without danger to the security that ought to be done.
There is one other point with which I want to deal and which is not strictly within the White Paper, but which I should like the Government to consider. As I have said, there are today far too many cases of decisions being made behind locked doors. In addition, there are other cases involving another procedure which is akin to the subject under discussion today. There have been raised in this House two or three cases of National Service men who have been

selected for a potential officers' course, and who, before that course is completed and they go before the War Office selection board for a commission, are suddenly notified that they are no longer on the potential officers' course and coat the reason is a suspicion of association with Communism.
These are very unfortunate cases, because in these cases there is no appeal tribunal. I have discussed with the War Office a case of a young man who went to Oxford before doing his National Service. While he was at Oxford he joined a Communist organisation or club. When on National Service he suffered this very fate, that he was not allowed to go before a War Office selection board and was never given any reason. When he went to his commanding officer and asked why, the commanding officer said, "I do not know. It is an instruction from the War Office. I have only had one or two similar cases before. The only ground that one can suppose is security." That is all the man was told.
Many young men join foolish clubs when they are undergraduates, but it is most unfortunate if they are to be branded for the rest of their lives merely because they have done so. In that procedure there is no kind of appeal, nor is the man concerned officially informed. He is simply withdrawn from the officers' course and returned to his unit. In such cases a man ought to be given an opportunity at least to defend himself. He ought to be brought not necessarily before a tribunal, but at least a competent authority which could give him the opportunity of explaining whether he is still tainted with the organisation which he had joined as an undergraduate. I hope that the Government will consider that point, because it deserves the consideration of this House.
We all recognise that some of these powers have to exist, but we have our prime duty to see that they are exercised only in cases of extreme urgency. We are here to defend our liberties as far as we possibly can, and we must never surrender them more than is absolutely essential for the security of the State.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I have often heard the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) during the time that I have


been in the House, and more often than not I have failed to agree with him, but today I agree with most that he has said. He has touched on some very important matters indeed.
I am one who regards this White Paper as being almost wholly a deplorable document. I am very sorry indeed that my right hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) have subscribed to it. I am not so surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, did so. Those who subscribe to this policy are here setting their hands to a further incursion into the liberty of the subject of a most serious nature.
We should remember the experiences in other countries, including countries which are regarded as part of the free world. As an example of how far one can go in these matters, I am reminded of the story told to me by a friend of mine who was a year or two ago a lecturer for a time at Princeton University and who had the astonishing experience of discovering there that in their security procedure they had found it desirable to incorporate into the University of Princeton members of the F.B.I. with the object of observing the behaviour of the students of that University. Further than that, he told me that they had reached the stage where the distinction of being awarded a Fulbright scholarship was no longer achieved on the basis purely of academic distinction. It had become very important to pass the security checks with the attached F.B.I. before being awarded that scholarship. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would consider features of that kind to be undesirable in Great Britain.
Much of what I am going to say has been said in an admirable manner, which I could not possibly emulate, in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) who, I think, put the case perfectly. I wanted to remind the House of what has happened in the past to people on the lower levels of the Civil Service under the procedure that has been employed by successive Governments. If the House is going to approve this document, we might as well realise clearly what we are approving, and I should like just briefly to give three examples of what has

happened to individuals who have been proceeded against under this security procedure.
The first is the case of a Post Office engineer in the city of Manchester who, so far as I could discover, was certainly not engaged in work that could be regarded as highly secret. Nevertheless, he was suspended from his job and hailed before the "three wise men" to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) has referred. Incidentally, I said a little earlier that I was rather disappointed that my right hon. Friends had subscribed to this present document, but I may say that I am particularly surprised that the document envisages no change in the rights of any individual brought before the tribunal to be represented by an advocate or by a trade union representative.
We have all had experience of people who have had to appear before a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal of any kind. They may be brilliant men in their own sphere but have no ability adequately to express themselves when appearing before a tribunal such as this, although the consequences to their future may be immensely serious if their case is not properly deployed and properly heard. I hope that even now my right hon. and hon. Friends will pursue this so that while we are reconsidering the procedure we might at the very least see that a man brought before the tribunal has the right to representation.
The man from the Post Office to whom I refer took the line, rightly or wrongly. that his political views were a matter for himself alone. When he got to the tribunal he asked in what way he was supposed to have failed in his duties, and what were the charges against him. The tribunal, which is bound by certain terms of reference, was obliged to tell him that all it could put to him, and all that he was called upon to answer, was the question, "Are you or are you not a Communist?" He refused to reply. In short, he took rather the same kind of line that Paul Robeson is taking in the United States at the present time.
Mr. Robeson's passport is being withheld by the United States authorities. He could have it if he made a declaration of his political beliefs, but he refuses to do so. So did this young man in the city of Manchester. He may have been


unwise to do so, but the fact is that he refused to answer as to his political beliefs. He said that it was not a matter for anyone but himself and again asked what the charges were against him as to his work. However, the tribunal is not there to go into such matters, and nothing further could be done. He was told that the tribunal found him not fit to occupy the position he held, and he was relegated to an inferior position, with consequent loss of earnings.
The second case concerns a man who for a period of six months in 1953 was employed as a temporary assistant in-formation officer in the Air Ministry. He writes:
I realise of course that there is a need for security measures in a Service Ministry, and I could have no objection to inquiries into my loyalty if they did not violate my right to live a private life. It would therefore seem to me entirely reasonable that, in the interval between my interview and my appointment, my reliability should be questioned, and I would not expect to be appointed if there were any doubt of it.
After he was appointed, however, along to his lodgings came an officer from Scotland Yard who inquired of his landlady about his personal habits and asked whether she knew anything about his politics. It went further than that. This man hailed from the Midlands. The police of the Midland county from which he came also inquired in his town of tradesmen, of friends and of members of the family—all in a manner calculated to raise in the minds of people who knew him suspicions of the wildest kind. The man had no opportunity at all of hearing about it or knowing about it—in fact, he discovered only by accident that these enquiries were being made. Surely such a procedure is quite deplorable, and I suspect that, although I have chosen to refer briefly this afternoon to three cases which happened to come to my notice, this has gone on in a very large number of cases concerning quite humble people—not people in what my hon. Friend referred to as the highest crust of the Civil Service.
The third case is one to which I have previously referred in the House and concerns the new procedure adopted by the Conservative Government in 1952. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West has said, this is the third development in security procedure since the war. One procedure

was laid down in 1948 by the Labour Government, and about that I had serious misgivings at the time. But let it be clearly understood that the procedure embarked on in 1952 went much further than that of 1948, while the present White Paper envisages a very much more serious extension of the procedure than was the case in the other two.
Let hon. Members consider the kind of questions that people have to answer in these matters. This case concerns a man employed in the Risley atomic energy undertaking. He had to fill in a questionnaire and was asked by the security officer questions of the following kind. There were the elementary questions about date and place of birth; all addresses since birth, with dates of removal; all schools and colleges attended, full-time and part-time, since the age of four; all occupations, employers and their addresses and departments in which employed since leaving school at age of 15; and addresses of all societies of which a member—including such things as his allotment association. Indeed, he was questioned as to where the plot on the allotment was. He had to say what church he attended and give full details of his interests and activities there. He had to give full information regarding the great amount of general work he had organised and taken part in with others in the church. He was asked about the function of the church. He was also
Questioned persistently as to whether I had any political affiliations, whether a Communist, Fascist or belonging to any such society.
He was asked when he was married and how long he was likely to remain at his present address; height, colour of hair and eyes, verification of signature, etc. He was then asked similar questions concerning his father and mother, each brother and sister, half-brother and half-sister; about his wife, his wife's parents, brothers, sisters and so on.

Mr. W. R. Williams: One would need an encyclopaedic knowledge to answer all that.

Mr. Griffiths: Further, he was asked the name of the head of his department; asked to give his frank opinion of the head of his department, how he got on with him; what politics were discussed


in the office by members of the staff. He was asked about the general political viewpoint of the office, and whether any of the office staff held extreme views politically.
I have referred to that case before in the House, I know, but all these are matters of extreme seriousness, and I hope that we are to hear from the Home Secretary—and from any other spokesman on the Front Bench on this side—a little more than we have heard so far in support of this document, in order to justify this extension of the powers of the Executive into the affairs of the individual.

5.20 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to make one brief observation about the very pungent speech we heard from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead). He was a little pessimistic about the Civil Service and its reaction to the White Paper. I happen to represent a very large number of civil servants. I do not mean to say that they are my voters. They are my constituents. No doubt a great many of them voted against me. A great many civil servants also reside in the constituency of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary.
These civil servants are a very hardworking, happy and courageous body. I do not think they will be unduly disturbed by the introduction of this White Paper with its outline of the further security measures which the Government have in mind. I have such an admiration, as most hon. Members have, for the Civil Service and the Foreign Service that I think those Services will be just as anxious as we are to protect the security of the State. It gave a wrong impression for the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West to assume, however charmingly he put it, that the whole Civil Service would be unduly disturbed by the measures proposed by the Government.
I want to re-emphasise one of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) which has not been sufficiently emphasised. At the end of the war, because Russia had been our ally for a number of years and then subsequently became a potential enemy, all Departments of the

national administrative machine contained a large number of Communist sympathisers. It was a very difficult task for the Socialist Government, having regard to the views held in this country about the liberty of the subject, to ensure that those who were our friends during the war and who in peace became our enemies, were not retained in positions in which secret information became available which, if used improperly, might endanger the State.
The then Socialist Prime Minister, now the noble Earl Attlee, appointed three advisers to help him over some of those difficulties with which the Labour Government found themselves faced at the time. If I remember rightly, he asserted, what I am sure would be whole-heartedly supported by the House, that he was certainly not going to tolerate a Third International in this country. I know very little about the work of the security machinery, but it must have caused grave concern when Burgess, whose Communist leanings and sympathies were very well known in London, became an established member of the Foreign Service in 1947. I have no doubt that it was a very difficult decision for the Socialist Government to take to appoint those advisers, but the "three advisers" machinery arose out of the very real danger with which the security of the nation was faced after the change-over to a potential enemy of our friendly ally, Russia.
I rather regret that that point has not been sufficiently emphasised in the country. There is no doubt that people were and still are seriously perturbed about what was known as the Burgess-Maclean incident; the more we clear it up, the better will people be pleased. That is why I welcomed the all-party Conference of Privy Councillors and the decisions that it has come to. Indeed, though I take full advantage of the liberty-of-the-subject ideal, in my view it is very wise to tilt one's security in favour of the State, because, if the State is infiltrated and penetrated, that is the end of the individual liberty of the subject.
I have only one other point to make and this is my only opportunity for making it. It is a difficult point, but I want it put on the record. I am sorry that it will have to be replied to by the Home Secretary because it is not exactly his responsibility.
I refer to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the White Paper, which I fully support. I think the country will be wholeheartedly behind the Government in the implications of these three paragraphs. If I try, in all humility, to interpret the views of the country, I think I can say that people were more shocked by the behaviour of Maclean while he was in Cairo than they were to know that we had a traitor inside the Foreign Service. The country has a great appreciation of the dignity of the Foreign Service and a great pride in it. People found it absolutely inexplicable that a man who behaved as Maclean did—this was outlined in very great detail on the last debate by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)—should have been retained in the Foreign Service and in such an important post.
The Government have never satisfactorily cleared up this matter. Believe me, it is most important in the future interests of the Foreign Service, for which we all have such an admiration, that the matter should be cleared up. That is why I want to put it on record today. This matter is linked up with the three paragraphs of the White Paper. What has never been cleared up is whether it was the responsibility of the Ambassador, the chief establishment officer, or of the Foreign Secretary of the day, that Maclean, after a period of rehabilitation, was re-employed by the Foreign Service. I tried to elicit the information about the Ambassador in a Question the other day addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, from whom I got a very dusty answer. The answer was that, in fact, all that the Ambassador had done was to report on the condition of Maclean's breakdown. If that is so, I assume that the Ambassador did not suggest that after rehabilitation Maclean should be re-employed.
It narrows down to the other two, the Establishment Department and the chief establishment officer or at political level. I have met and admired during my experience many of the chief establishment officers in our Foreign Service. Was it the decision of the Establishment Department and of the chief establishment officer of the day? If it was his decision, and if it was not taken at any other level at all, I want to know whether there had been an alteration in the Establishment Department. Has whoever was

responsible been removed from his position of responsibility? I do not think that it is in the interests of a sound and secure Foreign Service to recommend the retention of a man of the character of Maclean.
I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciates that the Government, by not giving an answer, have implicated everyone. That is most unfair to the Foreign Service and to those who are not culpable. If it was not the Establishment Department at the Foreign Office, was it political interference? I put the question directly. I appreciate that when we are discussing these great matters of security it is in the national interest that both sides of the House should be agreed, but speaking as a mere woman, I must say that sometimes this "old boy" business gets me down, and I want to know who took the decision about Maclean.
If it were a political decision, is it not fair that that should be stated? I do not want to know the name of the Minister; I am not interested in that. I want to be sure that in dealing with such matters, which affect character and reliability, no political interference or influence can be exercised from one side of the House or the other to retain people in posts for which they are not suited.
I say to my right hon. and gallant Friend, with all the emphasis which I can command, that the Government have left a very nasty taste in the mouths of the people of this country by not telling them how and why Maclean was retained in his post. Reference has been made to the lower ranks, and I remember asking the Postmaster-General about a young girl who had gone, full of life, into the Post Office, and had not declared that in one of her previous jobs she had been in trouble over some cash. That was a child of seventeen. Did the Postmaster-General exercise discretion on her behalf? Not a bit of it. Out of the service of the Post Office she had to go. If we are to show mercy and justice over the very grave and appalling behaviour of Maclean—I myself see no reason for that—then other Departments ought to exercise mercy and justice, too.
People always put this point to me: they do not understand how Maclean could have been retained in our distinguished and admirable Foreign Service. We admire the men and women


of impeccable character who serve in the Foreign Service all over the world, and, apart from this one instance, I do not think one of them would subscribe to a suggestion that Maclean should have been retained. It is not only a question of his being given a second chance. Imagine his meeting, in Washington, the former first secretary of the French Embassy in Cairo after such an incident had occurred? I know enough about the Foreign Service to realise what a bad impression that would make.
I hope that before these events are brought to a conclusion we shall be told who was culpable and whether the individual was moved by the votes of the people or by the process of the Government working on sound security principles.
I support the White Paper. Everybody is happier that we have got our new arrangements and that we can emerge from a bad dream and work forward in our own traditions for the security and protection of the State as a whole.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Like many other hon. Members, I have looked with a certain distaste at the White Paper and at some of the processes it recommends, but we must recognise that an extremely serious problem exists and that serious cases of traitorous behaviour to the country have happened. It is essential that we should try to segregate what is really serious and try to deal with it, and that we should not allow our suspicions to wander over a general field, spreading unnecessary alarm and bringing unnecessary injustice to all sorts of people who may prove to be entirely innocent.
I agree very much with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward); it seems to me that at least in the Burgess and Maclean case the main fault was not the security, but in the ordinary handling of the people involved. It certainly surprised me that Maclean, as I understand it, was almost pressed to return to work in the Foreign Office after the incidents in Cairo.
I am surprised, therefore, at the wording of paragraph 10 of the White Paper, which seems to imply that the serious

thing about such failings as drunkenness or addiction to drugs, or loose living generally, is that they lay a man open to blackmail. Surely these are serious things in themselves—things which a superior officer or the establishments Department in the Government service ought to know about, quite apart from any question of blackmail.
The hon. Lady has asked a number of questions of the Government. She asked who was responsible for allowing Burgess and Maclean to continue in the Foreign Office. That is a question for the Government to answer, but I would hazard a suggestion that it is probably difficult to pin responsibility on any one individual. When we are dealing with people in the higher grades like this, there are probably a great many people, including the man's political superiors, who have a say in the matter.
Surely the lesson to be learned is that the management of the public service is extremely important, and in this case at least it broke down. However important security may be in other respects, that is an important matter quite apart from security.
It is important that we should try to keep the procedure which the Conference of Privy Councillors has recommended down to the minimum numbers of cases and grades. We should restrict it to people who are liable to come in contact with secret documents and other secret information which, if they were to leak out, would be severely damaging to the country.
Like other hon. Members, I do not feel at all happy about some of the things which have happened to lower grade personnel in the service. I can hardly believe that some of the instances about which I and others have heard, such as the treatment of people in the Post Office, have been necessary on security grounds. Nor am I happy about the appeal procedure in these cases. The more I look at the matter the more convinced I am that the British system of law and the course of justice is extremely good, and once we get away from that and into rather vague realms of suspicion, of allegations which are not proved and of evidence which is not produced, we inevitably get into difficulties. I do not deny that we must face these difficulties or that the problem exists; of course it


does. But I suggest that we should keep the procedure down to the minimum and to the really important cases.
I go further and say that such cases ought to be dealt with drastically especially in the upper, higher grades of the public service. But I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) in thinking that in some cases even in the higher grades—not in all cases, but in some—the evidence could be made more generally available. I think the procedure, without being legalistic, could be fairer to those involved. Inevitably, people who come under this sort of suspicion suffer a great deal though they may not be guilty. It is extremely difficult to safeguard them against injustice.
I have had inquiries addressed to me, as no doubt have other hon. Members as to whether a certain man has had any Communist affiliations. If one feels that he has had Communist affiliations at one time or another, or has taken an interest in Marxism or perhaps joined a Communist club, does one say, "Yes; he has had affiliations with Communism"? One knows full well that it may be magnified into something much more serious than was in fact the case. It is difficult for the people supplying the information as well as for those about whom it is supplied. The more there is a regular and understood procedure, and the more that it is brought into the open, where it can be understood, the better.
Furthermore, there is the effect on a man's family and relations. Even though they are quite innocent, they are almost bound to suffer through inquiries of this kind, for news gets about. If a man loses promotion or is moved in his work, everybody knows about it and, apart from the effect on his character, the whole family is bound to suffer also. If we are to get drastic enough action in the serious cases, let us be sure that we catch only the guilty.
As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) said, what really matters is how the procedure outlined in the White Paper is to be applied. Would it be possible for the House to be given a report as to the procedure and practice which grows up in the Civil Service when the recommendations of the Conference of Privy Councillors come to be

applied? We ought to now how the procedure is being handled, and I should have thought that it would be possible from time to time to get that type of information.
I sympathise very much with the Conference which investigated these matters. But it has, perhaps, been rather too impressed by the dangers of Communism as such. After all, Communism is not illegal in this country; it is not a crime to be a Communist in opinion. What is a crime is to give information away to a foreign Power. I am not sure that this point comes out sufficiently clearly in the White Paper. Communism may possibly lead a man in that direction, but it is not in itself an offence. It is important that this should be clearly stated in the House. I should like to feel more certain than I do now that when investigations take place we are kept informed as to how the procedure is working and whether as much justice as possible is given to the people concerned.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would tend to agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that this procedure should be kept as narrow as possible and in a very limited sphere. I would certainly agree with the hon. Member also that the conduct of Maclean in particular was scandalous, but I think the hon. Member would agree that it might perhaps be even more dangerous to make this a kind of court of morals. This is an unfortunate procedure even as far as it goes in dealing with matters of public security, but if we were to introduce the extra element of morality it would be extended even more dangerously.

Mr. Grimond: I agree entirely. What I was trying to say was that a lot of the Maclean trouble should have been solved in the ordinary processes of the Department as a matter of personnel handling.

Mr. Gower: I certainly would not disagree with that.
Last week-end, a friend of mine remarked with reference to these matters that he was surprised at the concern which had been expressed. He said that public servants are in a far stronger position than one of his own employees, whom he could dismiss even if he did not


like the look of his face or simply if he thought the man was a Communist. Our feeling is that the State should be the best of all employers and should set a particularly high example of employment. Furthermore, public servants usually enjoy stability of employment. It is the kind of employment which goes through their whole career. For these reasons we have taken a particular view of the problem, and that is why we need to examine very closely such a procedure as this.
The wording in paragraph 15 of the White Paper is the kind of thing I have in mind. It is the sort of wording we do not want to see often in this country when it says:
to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
We reject that doctrine generally. It is one that we can suffer only in extraordinary circumstances. I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux). I think it is our duty to place far more emphasis on the right of the individual than on the safety of the State, except when that safety is obviously a primary consideration. That may have been the case after the war, and perhaps still is, but both sides of this House surely hope that those conditions will not always obtain. If there is at present an emphasis upon the danger from Communism, there are patent reasons for it. It is feasible that at other times other groups would represent a similar danger.
Examples of the doctrine to which I have referred—"tilting the balance" and paying more attention to the security of the State than to the individual—have happened before, and generally speaking those have not been the happiest periods in our history. The happiest times have been when the balance has been tilted the other way. When we recall the great efforts that were made in the supreme emergency of the last war, particularly to preserve the freedom of the individual, even when it was a difficult thing to do, we can recognise the dangers of pressing this doctrine too far today.
It is a pity that we are not considering tonight a Bill which is subject to amendment. My right hon. and gallant Friend

has, I am sure, already satisfied himself that it would be extremely difficult to get a Bill through in this form. There should be room for reconsideration. In this tribunal, why should there not be a limited right of representation by solicitor or counsel? There is precedent for this, even where secrets of State are concerned. It should be by no means impossible to allow a person or civil servant who is questioned as to his integrity to have the right to be represented by an advocate. I hope that the need for this kind of thing will be limited in time. I hope too that if any slight amendment of the kind I have mentioned is possible, full attention will be given to it.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Like some of my hon. Friends, I watched the Home Secretary dealing last night with questions sent him by people all over the country. In the questions I shall put to him tonight, I hope he will be able to answer as charmingly and attractively as he did then.
I welcome the spirit in which the House has approached this problem. It is a great tribute to the good sense and wisdom of hon. Members that we should be able to debate this matter without any sense of excitement, quite coolly and calmly and with due regard to the rights of individuals. I am also grateful that security in this country has never become a matter of party dispute. One of the gravest difficulties in the United States—it arose from the long period in opposition of the Republican Party, looking desperately for an issue—was that it did become a matter of party dispute and was thus inflated and inflamed until clear thinking on security matters was made very difficult.
I want briefly to deal with the three main issues which seem to arise from the White Paper. The first is the objective of security. In most defence White Papers there is some kind of reference to what the defence policy is designed to defend. It is very unfortunate that the Government's White Paper completely lacks any recognition of the dilemma which is inevitable when a free society tries to protect itself from subversion. That dilemma has been dealt with by every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. We are all aware of it; the natural liberal instincts of us all set against the necessities of protection.


Yet there is no mention of that in the White Paper.
I fear that a civil servant seeking to defend himself before "the three wise men" of the tribunal would find very little in this, the only published document to which he could refer, which would support him in his claim that he was only pursuing a normal independence of thought. I regret that is the case, because of course the real security of a free society lies in its freedom.
Many hon. Members who thought in the past that we could get greater security by tightening up the machinery ought to look at the Soviet Union, which, in my sincere submission, with all its security measures, is far less secure than we are in this country. Our security in the long run rests on the consent of the governed to be governed. If we were ever to try to substitute enforced uniformity of thought that would do the greatest possible damage to our free interests. I therefore start by noting the lack of any reference to this matter in the White Paper.
Now we come to the second subject, not the objective we are trying to achieve, but the nature of the danger that is feared. The White Paper lists three dangers. It lists, first, the man with a character defect. Secondly, it lists the man who is a Communist and, thirdly, the man who is a Communist sympathiser. I want to say straight away that I absolutely agree with hon. Members who this afternoon have said that character defects should really find no place in a White Paper on security.
I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a perfectly straight question on this subject. He may not be able to answer now, but I hope he will not think it an improper question. Is there any known case of a spy who has been a spy solely because of blackmail which was made possible by his own character defects? There is an extremely interesting report on this matter which was published in the United States and quoted by Dean Acheson in his book which really deserves great and serious study. He quotes Mr. Seth Richardson, the Assistant Attorney-General in the Hoover Administration and chairman of the Loyalty Review Board, who said:
Not one single case or evidence directed towards a case of espionage has been disclosed in that record.

I believe it is a very common illusion to suppose that many spies become spies because of blackmail. I should like to know whether there are any examples at all in the knowledge of the Government due to that cause.
The second question one comes to is that of the Communist Party member. I think that any Government considering security would be bound to regard a Communist Party member as a person, in the present state of the world, unfit for obvious reasons to be entrusted with security information which was essential to the State. But the much wider issue, and the one in which I think there is most criticism of the Government, is the question of Communist sympathisers.
There is a very great difference between regarding a man as unreliable because of what he thinks and regarding him as unreliable because of what he has done. My view is that, far from increasing the security of the State, if we had a lot of police inquiries, a lot of dossiers and files designed to show what men in the Civil Service have thought in the past or think now, we would be likely to encourage such great caution on the part of those civil servants that their capacity for free thought and independent inquiry would be seriously harmed and, as a result, the State would lose some of the benefit of their services. To take an exaggerated example, far from dismissing any member of the Foreign Office who had read Karl Marx, my inclination would be to dismiss anyone who had not read Karl Marx.

Mr. Ede: Sack the lot.

Mr. Benn: As my right hon. Friend says, that would be a very drastic step to take. Then we come up against the question of character defect and the ma's living with somebody who is supposed to be a Communist sympathiser. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend forgets that if a civil servant whose wife was a Communist sympathiser left his wife he might be in trouble on the ground of character defect. I think the answer to the extremists on security is ridicule. I hope that the sense of humour which is supposed to be one of our British characteristics will always prevent us from becoming too absurd in our inquiries into the views of civil servants.

Mr. Silverman: Not on the basis of this White Paper.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend quite rightly says that the White Paper shows little trace of humour and, one may think, in some ways even less wisdom. We come to the third part of the problem. The safeguarding of the free society was the first, and the second was the dangers to which we are exposed. Now we come to the methods to be employed by the Government in searching out security risks. It has already been pointed out, and I think it is worth re-emphasising, that the loyalty boards are not designed in order to catch spies, but it is purely preventive work—
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings
in its true sense is what the security board is designed to do. Therefore, we are only undertaking all these inquiries to expose certain people who might be dangerous to us.
What happens, so far as one can make out from hon. Members who have spoken, and we all have experience of this, is that the police make inquiries to find out all about a man, all that is good, bad and indifferent. That all goes down higgledy-piggledy into the record, depending on the judgment of the man who compiles the record. It is made available to the board which decides whether the man is suitable to be employed further or not. Then we come to the stage when the man is informed of the decision, and he has an opportunity of appealing to "the three wise men." Here I think there are very grave defects in the machinery provided by the White Paper.
It is argued that one cannot have an accused person interrogating witnesses because they might be doing secret work for the security forces. That might be true if a Communist is confronted with non-Communist police spies. At such a hearing the value of the police agents would at once disappear. But if they cannot be cross-examined by the accused himself, is that any bar to their being cross-examined by someone acting for the accused? We come back to the question of the right of advocacy on behalf of someone who is brought before the board.
Secondly, it is said that we cannot have a public trial and, in most cases, men are not charged but are brought up on suspicion. Is there any reason why a private trial should not be made more effective and more in accord with judicial procedures which we have in this country?

I put these points most sincerely to the Government because I believe that, when the immediate pressures of the Communist world relax, sooner or later all these practices will have to be replaced by our traditional practices.
I finish with a quotation from a man who was jointly responsible for security measures in the United States with President Truman, Dean Acheson, a very distinguished American and, I believe, a very great American Secretary of State. He referred to the three Presidential executive orders made in the years 1947, 1950 and 1953 which were adopted to deal with exactly this problem, and he devotes a great chapter to the problem in which he finishes with these words:
I was an officer of that Administration and share with it the responsibility for what I am now convinced was a grave mistake and a failure to foresee consequences which were inevitable. That responsibility canont be escaped or obscured.
With such an authority to support me, I ask the Government to look again at the White Paper before it becomes the established practice of this country.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like to take the opportunity of touching on a few of the points which have been made in the debate, particularly about the procedure which has been laid down. I do not wholly agree with the arguments which have been addressed to the House that the Government have not provided adequate measures in this White Paper.
Before I do that, however I want to deal with a matter which, I believe, is also of very great importance and which has not been referred to so far. The terms of reference provided for the Conference of Privy Councillors were:
To examine the security procedures now applied in the public services and to consider whether any further precautions are called for and should be taken.
I am most deeply concerned about the personnel employed in our secret services at present. I believe that if they are not very careful the Government will lose now, or very soon, some of the best intelligence men, foreigners and Englishmen, employed in those services; and for this reason. Quite rightly, as a general principle, the Civil Service works not so much on suitability but upon the standard of service which has been sot over


years and by the precedents which thereby are retained in its traditions.
It so happens that the men who are employed upon security work may be temporary civil servants, not permanent civil servants. This work may be the only work they do, and they may come from any country in the world. There is real danger at the moment that in the quite proper comb out of the Civil Service in order to try to get rid of a certain number in each Department for economy reasons we may so purge ourselves as to lose some of the most useful men.
In one of our intelligence services there are several men who are under notice to go within the next few months. One of these is one of the greatest coding experts in the world. I need not say more than that a man with remarkable knowledge of cipher and coding work, whose entire adult life has been devoted to intelligence work, and who has been working for the past ten years in the service of this country, is a man who is irreplaceable. When I tell the House that he is a temporary civil servant with a salary of only £550 a year the House can see how easy it is to lose somebody really valuable.
I turn to the question of the further precautions which, I believe, should be taken. There are in this country and in the Middle East a number of men with life-long experience, aliens and Englishmen, who can be of the greatest assistance to us at present in strengthening our security services in the Middle East. I know none of those services, but I know that there are people, certainly the Turks, and people of other nations, who are highly critical of the extent and scope of our security measures in that part of the world in the light of the upheavals that have recently taken place and are taking place there.
I hope, therefore, that in considering these questions of security we shall apply this principle, that for this work suitability shall be the sole and supreme test, and realise that we cannot take into account questions of precedence and promotion which apply to the normal grades of the Civil Service; and that we shall see that we do secure and retain suitable men in our security services, thus protecting our interests and ensuring the maintenance of the great reputation our intelligence services in the past have won.
I wish now to say why I support the White Paper, even paragraphs 15 and 16, which have been so severely criticised. I think it is well known that I have myself been associated with a wide range of recommendations in the rule of law, on reforms in administrative law and in tribunals, and in many other matters associated with the liberty of the subject. Why is it, then, that, broadly speaking, I think it is right to say that the security of the State may mean that one jeopardises some of the most precious assets of the liberty of the subject? It is for this reason.
In the Secret Service, in espionage and in security work, it is well known that, as distinct from a person who has mere access to certain documents, a man employed takes, and understands that he takes, what may be described as the trade risk that he will never in a court of law or before an adequate tribunal be able to explain his dismissal or have it explained. He realises that. It is a risk of his occupation. In ordinary circumstances of employment, an employer, if he dismisses a man, has not to assign reasons for the dismissal: none whatsoever. One can employ an office boy or a domestic servant or a factory worker and may dismiss him and give no reason.
There is no obligation as such upon the Civil Service to state reasons for dismissal. I think it is an admirable precedent that it has so developed that, in fact, it does give reasons. It is admirable that there is a tribunal to which dismissed civil servants can go, and before which the reasons, such as they are, can be stated. I agree with the argument made that if we set up a tribunal we should by all means make it effective. We must, therefore, give a right of representation by solicitor and counsel. I must agree with that.
However, in security I am by no means sure there ought to have been any such tribunal or any right given of representation or of reasons to be stated, for this is really a question of the policy of the Minister. If one is deciding between one spy and another, or upon the employment of one person or another on a task of secret diplomacy, it is not really a question of whether he has given so many years of service or not; it is a question of whether he is the most suitable person for the job. If a man wants to take up


employment of that sort he must accept all the dangers associated with it, including the possible loss of employment.
I think it is important that that view should be expressed in the House, even although it is one I express with great misgivings because of my own very strong feelings about the principle of the liberty of the individual and of fair treatment. All I am really saying is that it is a question of an understood and accepted risk, and that it is a matter within the determination of the Minister in charge.
This White Paper, of course, touches only the fringe of the subject. I hope Ministers gave deep and anxious thought to the whole scope of our security services. I hope they bore in mind the importance of seeing that the finest men and women, not only English subjects but subjects of other countries who are friendly disposed to us, are able to be employed and to continue to be employed satisfactorily, and judged not by the yardstick of the Civil Service, on the basis of the length of their employment, but entirely by their suitability individually for the work which we wish them to do for the security and benefit of our country.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The close interest which has been taken on both sides of the House in this White Paper, and also the anxieties expressed on both sides of the House, lead me to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary about future action.
This is one of the concluding chapters in the affair of Burgess and Maclean. I did not seek to intervene in the earlier debates on them for two reasons. One was that I had a representative post on the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and the second was that I worked in close association with Burgess for three years. I have always found it very difficult to believe a great deal of what was said about him. I certainly wish to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), that the trouble about Burgess was not the failure of our security arrangements but the failure of his superior officers to judge him courageously and objectively on his behaviour.
I worked with Burgess for long enough to know his habits. Anyone who had close contact with him could have realised not only his brilliant intellect but the defects of his conduct and behaviour and could have judged how unreliable he might become in certain circumstances. Therefore, I say that there was a failure of the normal operation of judging people on the part of superior officers. A weakness in public administration is the failure of members of one class to judge objectively and courageously members of the same class. I should not be at all surprised if that was not the real explanation of what happened in this case.
The truth is that most of this trouble comes from university graduates. It is not the humdrum civil servant with the bowler hat and umbrella, who catches the 5.20 from Victoria, who is the unreliable civil servant. He is not the one for whom this White Paper is published. It seems that life in universities encourages riotous living and love of social life and parties, and these people come into the Civil Service infected with their experiences as undergraduates. I hope that that is neither preaching a class war nor being unfair to university-trained civil servants, but the belief in the Civil Service is that all these people hang together, that they do not let each other down, and that they all gather round and shield their own class from the critical gaze of those who might expect better of them.
There is no doubt that a lower-grade civil servant stands much greater risk of being bundled out for unsuitability or undesirable behaviour than does a member of the administrative class. There is not the slightest doubt about that, and I speak from long experience in connection with the public service. Defects in conduct and character are, of course, important, not only in relation to security risk but to suitability to be retained in the public service. Certain standards are required in the public service and should be insisted upon, but we have to be careful not to make the cure worse than the disease.
Another weakness of administration is the speed with which general conclusions are drawn from particular oases. I could give many examples of how elaborate precautions have been taken in public administration to close gaps or guard against weaknesses or difficulties which


have appeared only rarely or even, in some oases, only once. In the White Paper there is scarcely a generalisation for which a plausible defence cannot be found. One might say, "Look at all of them. Yes, that seems reasonable. The country must not be put in jeopardy. The public service must be like Caesar's wife," and so on. But when we come to apply these things we run into difficulties.
The Civil Service is now being asked to accept new conditions which will expose civil servants and their personal lives and associations to closer observation and scrutiny. It may not be so difficult to impose new conditions when recruiting new people to the public service. After all, those who apply to enter the public service, can expect to satisfy all reasonable requirements and tests of their suitability and reliability, but these new principles will be applied to serving civil servants. We can all imagine what we should feel like if we had been in an occupation, trusted servants in a responsible sphere of the public administration, if, in applying the new conditions laid down in the White Paper, offensive tests and interrogations were to follow.
We should ask ourselves how paragraph 15 of the White Paper is to be applied. Does it mean knocking at the door and asking to see our wives when we are not at home and an interrogating officer saying, "I have come to find out whether you are a Communist sympathiser. I know you will not want to discuss this on the doorstep, so please may I come in"? Is the House going to stand for that?
Throughout the White Paper we shall see difficulties of application. I suggest to the Home Secretary that when the procedure mentioned in paragraph 17 of the White Paper has been completed, the result of it should be published in another White Paper for the information of hon. Members. The difficulty about White Papers and documents of this kind is that the House parts with them, having expressed doubts and anxieties and approval and satisfaction and varying opinions about them, and then leaves it to the National Whitley Council to work out the rules and regulations which will give effect to what are then judged to be the decisions of the House.
One can understand that the representatives of the staffs of the Civil Service feel themselves at a great disadvantage in trying to reach agreement with the Official Side of the National Whitley Council on difficult matters of this kind upon which it can be said, "The House has decided, Parliament has approved the White Paper, and this is the framework within which our discussions and hope of agreement must take place."
Criticism has been made of the existing procedure regarding the "three wise men" and the ban on trade union or legal representation on behalf of an accused officer. Reasons were given for it at the time, but probably the House would wish to examine it afresh and wish to see all the new rules and regulations when they have gone through the machinery of the National Whitley Council to discover whether the House can then recognise the application of the principles embodied in the White Paper of which we shall shortly be asked to approve.

Mr. S. Silverman: We are having a general discussion of the White Paper on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The House is being given no opportunity at all, as far as I understand it, to express approval or disapproval of the White Paper, except individually.

Mr. Houghton: I accept that that is the technical position, but certain conclusions will be drawn from the fact that the debate has taken place. I agree that we must not get those conclusions wrong.
I am trying to impress upon the House that the next step is the discussion of the new rules mentioned in paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which states:
The measures necessary to carry out these recommendations will involve alterations in existing procedures. These alterations will be notified to the staff associations concerned and an opportunity given for representation to be made before the alterations are promulgated in full.
I am asking that the Home Secretary should assure the House that when the time comes for the promulgation of the new and more comprehensive regulations, they shall be published in a further White Paper so that the House may see them and, if it sees fit, provide a further short period of parliamentary time to


discuss them. At the moment, the Civil Service is in no position to offset the general conditions which may be laid down by the Government—with some tacit consent, and no more, of the House—as a basis for negotiation and discussion on these new regulations. I hope sincerely that this will prove possible, because it would be a reassurance to the public service.
I conclude by saying that I am sure that no one in this House, and I hope no one outside, will think that he sees in this White Paper a portrait of the Civil Service or a portrait of any but the rarest misfits and undesirables who have passed all the tests and all the conditions for entering the public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) said, in his remarkable eloquent maiden speech, the House will wish, notwithstanding the attention it is having to give to the White Paper, to renew its confidence in the public service generally. The House will wish to assure the service that nothing will be done which will give undue offence to the public service in carrying out the recommendations of the Conference on the further measures to be taken on security grounds.

6.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): We have had an interesting debate and some valuable speeches. I wish particularly to add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) on what everyone will agree was a thoughtful and informative maiden speech. I echo the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that we shall look forward to his interventions in future if they are of the standard which he offered today.
I could not help thinking, as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, that the original statement about security was made by his predecessor in this House, the present Earl Attlee. One thing which has impressed itself upon me during the debate has been that it is a sequel to the one held on 7th November and that the White Paper is a sequel to the one which the then Foreign Secretary presented on the

disappearance of the two former Foreign Office officials.
It is obvious from many of the speeches today that many hon. Members are of the opinion that there is to be a big departure from the policy followed by successive Governments. I assure the House as sincerely as possible that there is no departure from the policy which successive Governments have laid down.
The impression conveyed to me by most of the speeches during the debate on 7th November was that what really disturbed hon. Members was a real anxiety that there was a defect in our security system which was having serious effects. In other words, that the menace threatening this country was what I call the ideological traitor. I do not think I am misinterpreting the impression which that debate gave.
Indeed, it was because of the general feeling then that this inquiry was held. It was urged upon us by hon. Members in all parts of the House that something was radically wrong. That suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). The impression made upon me at the time was that the anxiety about security was uppermost in the mind of hon. Members and not the fear that we were riding roughshod over the liberties of the people. To put it another way, not that we were doing too much but that we were doing too little. The real worry was that we were being too liberal in our approach to the problem. This was why we had the inquiry.
The Conference included two of my right hon. Friends as well as myself, a former Home Secretary and my noble Friend, who is peculiarly concerned with certain aspects of security. I hope I can say, whilst preserving due modesty, that the composition of the Conference was such that we might expect it to inspire some confidence in this House. It was greatly strengthened by the addition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, who is not only a former Home Secretary but a former Foreign Secretary, as well. In addition, we had the benefit of the noble Lord,


Earl Jowitt, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) who, in his former capacity, as Minister of Supply, had such a wide experience of the problems with which the Conference had to deal.
It is obvious that we could not publish the full Report. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to a question, we have published in the White Paper as much as it is proper to do. I admit that it is extremely difficult to produce a White Paper of this kind since it is undesirable to disclose so much of the material, but I hope it will give satisfaction to those who, on 7th November, expressed doubts as to the security services.
It is true that the Conference recommended certain changes which were designed to strengthen our security system. As the White Paper states, the Conference was satisfied on the general issue that there was nothing organically wrong with our security services, and I hope that this will allay the anxiety of those who have the impression that there is something fundamentally unsound with the system.
On the suggestion that we are taking much wider powers, may I point out that several speakers in the debate last Friday suggested that we should take far wider powers for detaining suspects than we have at present. On that issue the Conference gave a definite and authoritative answer. It recommended strongly that there should be no amendment of the law in that respect, and with this I am sure that the whole House will agree.
There is little doubt in any quarter of the House about the menace which we are seeking to combat. However it may be well to remind hon. Members of what the Conference said. It upheld the view, first publicly stated by Lord Attlee, in 1948, that one of the main dangers to security is presented by the Communist whose faith overrides his normal loyalties to his country, and induces the belief that it is justifiable to hand over secret information to the party or to a Communist foreign Power. As I said just now, no departure at all has been made from that.
I hope, therefore, that it is common ground that the Government are right in pursuing the policy adopted by successive Governments in recent years of making it one of their main objects to ensure that

Communists and, I would emphasise, those associated with them—paragraph 15 has come in for some criticism, but I would emphasise "those associated with them"—are not employed in the Civil Service where they are in a position to get hold of secret information. Another important point to be remembered is "where they are in a position to get hold of secret information." That is a view which, I think, is accepted not only in this House but by most people outside.
I remember an article in the Daily Worker which followed the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper brought down the wrath of the Daily Worker. What brought down that wrath was not the threat to the rights of private citizens, or the incursion into the private lives of individuals. It was that, for convenience and brevity, we explained in paragraph 5 that the term "Communism" was used throughout the White Paper to cover Communism and Fascism alike. That is what really annoyed the Daily Worker, but we were, of course, right to use that term for brevity.
I have thought it right to remind the House of these two findings of the Conference because, on the face of it, they are a complete answer to most of the points made in the debate last November. They have established that the policy followed by successive Governments during the last eight years has been right and that the procedures to give effect to that policy are sound.
There has been more emphasis today on a rather different point. Previously, the House was far more concerned as to whether we had got the security which we ought to have for the safety of the country. Today, there has been far greater emphasis—I am not complaining about it; I am merely stating the fact—on the fact that we are apparently paying too little attention to the rights of the private individual. Doubts have been expressed today about the justification for the recommendations in the White Paper designed to strengthen the present security system.
It is a very understandable reaction to question the need for measures, some of which are certainly alien to our liberal traditions, and for that reason adopted with considerable reluctance. However, I should like to make three points in reply to those who may still feel that such


measures are unnecessary. First, however distasteful were the measures which successive Governments over the last few years have had to take, we cannot sit back and do nothing while our security is imperilled by a menace, the existence of which is accepted on all sides.
Secondly, while some of our countermeasures, it is true, are alien to our liberal traditions, so is the menace which they set out to circumvent. That is a point that we must never forget. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the November debate, Communism has set progress back three centuries. We are now, thanks to Communist activities, back in the age when a man who holds this new creed thinks it loyal to be disloyal and has no scruple about betraying his own country. We are, therefore, driven into adopting steps which we take only because of protecting the liberal traditions that we in this country hold dear.
Thirdly, while I do not for a moment under-rate the hardship of those who, because they are adjudged to be the dupes of the Communist creed, are moved to other work or, if it is impossible to find non-secret work for them, lose their appointments in the Civil Service, I should like to make one comment on that. Hard as their lot is, we can all make a shrewd guess as to what their lot would have been had they been employed in the Civil Service of a Communist Power, and it had been discovered that they belonged to or sympathised with a movement holding views about Communism analogous to those which Communists hold about democratic government.
I do not propose to discuss the recommendations of the Conference in detail—it would take a very long time to do so—but I think the House would wish me to deal with one general point. The White Paper says, on the one hand, that it is sometimes necessary to refuse to employ a man on secret duties because, after the fullest investigation, doubts about his reliability remain, and, on the other, that in deciding borderline cases i: is right to continue the practice—I say "to continue the practice" deliberately—of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
The Conference had no intention of suggesting that anything short of the fullest possible investigation should be made in an endeavour to resolve doubts or of denying to a civil servant the right and opportunity to state his case. It is frequently very difficult to decide whether the State is justified in trusting a man with its secrets. I can assure the House—I say this with knowledge—that the very greatest care is taken at all stages to make a fair and honest appraisal of the facts. The problem is sometimes to judge the state of a man's mind now, or to judge how he would react to a particular situation in the future.
Nor can we afford to neglect the danger of a man who, himself completely innocent, constitutes a risk to security because, for example, he has relatives behind the Iron Curtain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall drew attention to that kind of risk during the debate on atomic energy in April, 1954. I am sure he was right and that we must treat persons of that character as security risks.
I am equally certain that the Conference of Privy Councillors was right in enjoining us to watch the risk to security which may be caused by the man under the influence of a close relative who is a Communist. In any such case, of course, we shall do our best to see that the man who has to be taken off secret work gets employment in some other branch of the Civil Service.
The second general point that I would make is that it must never be supposed that when we are dealing with cases of this kind, any more than when we are dealing with the other case to which the Conference referred—the civil servant with a serious character defect—we shall work to set rules. The suggestions in the White Paper are purely examples of the sort of defects which might be looked at, and, of course, it is vitally important that that should be known. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked me whether I had ever known of a spy who had become one because of character defects.

Mr. Benn: No, because of blackmail.

Major Lloyd-George: I am sorry; I have not got an example of one of those, but I could tell the hon. Member of quite a number who came to serious trouble because of very serious defects,


though I have not got a case of blackmail in mind at the moment. I could not give an example of blackmail without some research, but for people coming to what I might call a "sticky end" because of character defects, I could give a number of examples. It is a well-known fact that many of the finest spies were chosen because they were the type of person who might encourage character defects, if I may put it that way.
Therefore, character defects of one form or another are of tremendous importance. I am not saying that spying and blackmail necessarily go together; there can be the blackmailing of a person who was not exactly a spy. In any case, it is a danger, though only one of the many dangers which are obvious weaknesses, I should have thought, in any system of security. Furthermore, I am certain that still the best protection we can give to the individual is to continue to rely upon the resolve of Ministers to consider these cases on their merits and to reach in each case the best judgment which it is possible for a human being to reach.
Questions have been asked of me today about the terms of reference mentioned in paragraph 16 of the White Paper. It is important to remember that in this particular case, as in so many, the staff side would be involved and consultation will have to take place with them. As soon as this has been done, the House will be informed. I do want to make this perfectly clear: it is not altogether against the interests of the individual involved when the powers and terms of reference are extended, because it may enable far more information about a particular person to be obtained which could well be to his advantage. It does not necessarily work one way. In any case, it will be the subject of discussions with the staff side, and then the House will be informed.
Thirdly, I would like to emphasise that the greatest care is taken in investigating all cases of suspects. I assure the House that an adverse decision is not reached except after the most careful evaluation of all considerations telling in favour—this is very important—telling in favour of as well as against the suspected person. Speaking with knowledge, may I say that I have the greatest confidence in the skill and experience of our security services.

May I say, further, that there is no danger in this country of witch-hunting for the sake of witch-hunting. It is obvious, of course, that there is a great deal of information which cannot in any circumstances be disclosed; every hon. Gentleman in every part of the House appreciates that.
Most of the attack on our security services has not been that they were too severe, but that they were not severe enough. The effect of the debate on 7th November was not to criticise the security services because of the ghastly methods they used, but to suggest they were not really strong enough.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) asked for some figures about purging. I have the figures for the last five years. The total of those purged was 62. Of those, nine were in the higher executive or higher ranks, and 53 were in the lower ranks. That is a total of 62 out of a non-industrial figure of 650,000 and an industrial figure of 400,000.
I do not think that those results bear out any attack on the Civil Service. I am very happy, as we all are, to endorse what has been said today about the Civil Service, and I feel that those figures give some indication of the position. On the whole, there is no laxness in the security services, but it could not possibly be held against them that the security services were making life intolerable for many people. I think those figures prove that.
The White Paper, has, in my submission, established three propositions: first, that our policy of regarding the Communist and Communist sympathiser as a menace to our security is the right policy for any Government to follow; secondly, that our existing procedures are fundamentally sound; thirdly, that in following our policy and in applying our procedures it is right that the Government should continue, as they mean to do, within the limits imposed by this new menace to our national way of life, to pay due regard to the position of the individual.
I submit that with these propositions established, on the findings of this very responsible body, and with the assurance that the Government intend to do all that they can to prevent their policies and procedures impinging unfairly on human rights, the House can rest content with the findings of the inquiry.

Orders of the Day — POLICE FORCES (PAY)

6.46 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: Before we give a Third Reading to the Consolidated Fund Bill, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter which concerns the police service, and to ask the House whether they will consider that the case I wish to make does not require further consideration by the Home Secretary.
I should like to preface my recital of the facts by saying that I have no desire at all to bring this matter before the House of Commons. In my view, all matters concerning pay and conditions of service in the police forces should be settled through the normal negotiating machinery which has recently been set up for them. It is the intention of the police themselves that they should settle these matters through those channels. I have been asked, however, to raise this matter this evening because the police feel that the proper channel of negotiation on this question of police pay has been blocked and that, accordingly, their only recourse is to bring the matter to the House.
The House will know that there was an increase in pay conceded to the police service following the arbitration tribunal award of December last. The Home Secretary brought in regulations on 16th December to give effect to that award. I ought to say that the arbitrators doubled the offer which had been made by the official side in the negotiations, an offer which had properly been rejected by the staff side; and, clearly, the view of the staff side was supported by the arbitration tribunal.
That last factor, if I may say so, is a count in this particular complaint that at no stage have the negotiations been conducted in accordance with modern ideas of negotiation which should have infiltrated through the mind even of the Home Office in 1955 and 1956. We regret very much that we had to go to arbitration. We were delighted with the result, because we thought that it did justice to the police service.
During the course of the hearing, it became clear that although this claim on behalf of the police had been put in in June, the hearing was taking place in

November, and the arbitrators' award was to be made in December, the police could not have their claim back-dated earlier than to the date on which the Home Secretary made his regulations, that is to say, 16th December.
It was a remarkable thing—indeed, a very rare thing in my experience—that the official side at the hearing, contesting the claim of the police, expressed sympathy with the point of view, put forward on behalf of the staff side, that there should be a measure of restrospection for any new scales which the arbitrators might award. In fact, a date was mentioned by the official side during the course of the hearing. The official side spokesman said in the arbitration court that his side thought that any new scales which were awarded should take effect from 8th September. Because of the delay in getting the arbitration and making the regulations, the new scales did not take effect until 16th December.
In their award the arbitrators referred to this matter—they were independent arbitrators appointed by the Home Secretary—and said:
The Official side, however, expressed their sympathy (which we share)"—
that is, the arbitrators—
towards some measure of retrospective operation being given to any increase of pay awarded, although they did not concede that 11th June, 1955, was the agreed date, even if retrospection was legally permissible.
We are, therefore, faced with the position that after a long struggle the police were awarded scales of pay by arbitration far better than the official side was prepared to give. The police got the award after a delay of many months, after a statement by the official side that it thought that the delay was of such a nature that the scale should be backdated, after the arbitrators themselves said that in their view there might be some measure of retrospection—at any rate, that they had sympathy with it; I do not want to put the case too high.
Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation today in which these scales of pay have been fixed by reference to 16th December, and everything before that date has been completely ignored. I understand that in the Consolidated Fund Bill the Home Secretary could have made provision for money which would have met this retrospective claim. I want to


know why the Home Office has not made provision for retrospective pay for the police force which, on all sides, has been conceded as justified; and I think that I have made my case about that.
We saw the Home Secretary, who received us very courteously indeed, and who expressed sympathy with our case. He was not the first Home Secretary to do so. Three years ago the then Home Secretary, formerly Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and now Lord Kilmuir, told the Police Federation that he, too, was sympathetic about the defect in the Police Act, 1919, which makes it impossible for retrospection to be given earlier than the operative date. Three years have gone by, and, although I am told that through Lord Kilmuir the Government at that time promised to introduce legislation, no legislation has been produced. In consequence this situation has arisen. We went to the Home Secretary—

Sir Ian Fraser: When the hon. Member says "we," who are "we"?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought I had made that clear at the beginning of my speech. I am speaking on behalf of the Police Federation, whose consultant I am in these matters, have made that clear on previous occasions. I think that the position is well known to the Home Office.
The present Home Secretary listened to us for about an hour. We put our case, against which no argument was produced. The response to that considered case was a letter from an undersecretary in the Home Office which was dated 9th March, 1956. The substance was this:
The Secretary of State has carefully considered the view expressed by the deputation, but he has reached the conclusion that it would not be possible to give retrospective effect to the December award.
That was all we got.
There was no attempt to argue the case, no attempt to say that the representations would be considered, or that they could not be considered because of a, b, c, d, or e, no attempt to say that we should have made the case in another way. There was a blank standing on authority which made a mockery of negotiations. There is a very strong feeling in the Police Federation that, having

introduced this machinery, the Home Secretary really ought to take the police into his confidence and explain why it is not possible to do this. We hold the view that it is possible to do it in the Consolidated Fund Bill, which presents the very opportunity for meeting this particular claim.
We therefore put two considerations to the Home Secretary. First, why has it not been possible to meet this claim when the Home Secretary has at his disposal the machinery of the Consolidated Fund Bill? Secondly, will the Home Secretary ask his officers to conduct future negotiations as though they were negotiations and not just statements handed down from on high. When reasonable cases are put forward, people expect reasonable arguments in return.
We now propose to take the matter further. We intend to ask the independent arbitrators to consider this particular dispute. Can we have an assurance from the Home Secretary that if, in their turn, the arbitrators translate the sympathy they expressed into positive recommendation, for which we shall now ask, he will, in the next Consolidated Fund Bill, which will come forward in July, ask for the sum of money required to meet any claim conceded by the arbitrators?
That is the case which I have put shortly and succinctly. There is very much more I should like to say. It is known to all my hon. Friends that, in all industrial negotiations, back-dating is conceded. Only a few classes, teachers, members of fire brigades, the police, and a few others do not benefit from retrospection. The Police Federation asks that these facts should be made known to the House and that the obscurantism of the Home Office can be made known so that hon. Members can form their own judgment.

6.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): While by no means accepting the latter part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I agree that the case resolves itself into two issues, whether the pay award to federated ranks of the police service on 15th December could, by regulation or any other means, be made retrospective, and, whether provision to make such pay awards retrospective is


desirable and our intentions on any such legislation as might be needed.
It is generally accepted, and I think that the hon. Member will concede it, that retrospection cannot properly be given by means of regulations. That has been done in the past in very isolated instances, but it has become the Government's view, and it was also the view of our predecessors, that Statutory Instruments should not be made with retrospective effect without expressed statutory provision.
That being so, alternatives have been canvassed. The most significant was the proposal of the hon. Member himself to give retrospective effect to the December award by the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate in advance of legislation. That is an issue which has been very thoroughly explored and I want to mention only one difficulty, but a particular one, about implementing it. Such a Supplementary Estimate could cover only the Exchequer share of the retrospective payment. It would not meet the problem of empowering police authorities to make the payment. I will not elaborate that point. Use of Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933, to

indemnify police authorities would not meet the case.

Mr. Callaghan: If that is the case, why cannot there be adopted the procedure which is used for chief constables who get back pay because their own salaries are not covered by regulation, and in respect of whom the Home Secretary sends a circular to local authorities asking and advising them to make appropriate provision for those cases?

Mr. Deedes: It is done by omitting specific awards from regulations, but that could hardly be done generally for all ranks in the police.
On the occasion to which the hon. Member has referred, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that this was a matter affecting a much wider field than the police and the Home Office and he would have to consult his colleagues. He is doing that and we hope that that may lead to—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 256.
The point here can be put quite briefly, as it is indicated in the Bill itself, which gives power to the Leeds Corporation to—
provide…a cold-air store or refrigerator for the storage and preservation of meat and other articles of food
and make charges for the use thereof, and, further—
at any such cold-air store or refrigerator make ice and sell the same.
It is my view that, although for the time being the corporation has made fairly clear in discussions that it has only a very limited object in mind, this could clearly be an attempt at municipal trading, which, quite frankly, neither I nor my hon. Friends can support.
Two considerations arise. First, as the House well knows, there are powers under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, for a cold-air store in connection with an abattoir to be in operation, with the consent of certain Ministers, and I suggest that the powers set out in this Bill are unnecessary. Indeed, these provisions would be not only an undesirable feature, but, I suggest, might well be a gross abuse of the ratepayers' money. I say this most firmly as there is at present a large surplus in the City of Leeds of cold-storage accommodation.
There are, in fact, three firms concerned. There is the Yorkshire Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company, which has a low temperature capacity of 140,000 cubic feet; next, there is the Union Cold Storage Company, with a low temperature capacity of 164,000 cubic feet; and, thirdly, there is the Leeds Consumer Ice and Cold Storage Company, with 57,000 cubic feet capacity. If the need actually existed for any extensions of these facilities, they are available to be so extended to the extent of 25 per cent. in the case of the first firm, to the extent of 50 per cent. in the case of the second, and to the extent of 150 per cent. in the case of the third.
In addition, there is capacity for another 600,000 cubic feet in the Government store, which under an arrangement made is managed by the Yorkshire Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company. The House will know that, as far as Government stores are concerned, an undertaking was given, I think by the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Food at that time, which was supported by the previous Administration as well as by the present one, that it should not be used in direct competition with private enterprise. I think that that is a proper principle which both sides of this House in turn have supported, and I suggest that we should not give support to a move in this Bill which might well—and could at some future time—develop in such a manner as to create such direct competition.
I appreciate that, at the present moment, the corporation says that that is not its intention, and I accept its word. It is probably true that it is not its intention, but the point is that the Bill gives the corporation very wide powers far beyond what is necessary for the limited use which it has in mind.
At the present moment, without taking the Government store into consideration, the three firms I have mentioned have a capacity together of 360,000 cubic feet, and only about three-quarters of that, on the average, is actually used. I therefore submit that, at the very most, all that the corporation requires is a moderate sized cold-air store for cooling and chilling home-killed meat in connection with the new abattoir, powers for which it is applying. The corporation does not, therefore, require the powers provided in this Bill, for the simple reason that its limited objective can be attained, as I have indicated, under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955.
It is a very simple issue. I maintain most strongly that Leeds ratepayers should be protected from what might be an unnecessary and perhaps rather grandiose scheme, not necessary for the specific purpose which even the corporation itself admits is indeed the objective. It is possible for present needs to be met, and for future needs to be provided for, without actually incorporating in this Bill this very wide Clause, which some future generations of councillors, who might have different


views about this matter from the present members of the corporation, might use to cause unnecessary expense to the ratepayers by providing something which is more adequately provided for at the moment, even allowing for future needs, within the framework of existing private enterprise firms.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I beg to second the Motion.
Nobody can deny that provision for the cooling and chilling of home-killed meat is desirable in any modern abattoir, and it would be quite foolish of us on this side of the House to suggest otherwise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has mentioned, Leeds Corporation already has such powers under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. My main objection to this Clause is that in it Leeds Corporation is seeking to provide more cold air space than the City of Leeds needs, because the bulk of the low temperature storage space in the city at the present time is not being utilised for home-killed meat, but for a variety of other purposes; namely, the preservation of almost all kinds of foodstuffs, comprising imported meat, poultry, bacon, eggs, cheese and various others.
In view of the fact that it is acknowledged that in Leeds there is surplus low temperature capacity, it seems to me to be quite absurd that Leeds Corporation should take unto itself powers to provide additional facilities which are not now required. If, on the other hand, it was discovered at some future date that the existing private enterprise facilities were not sufficient for the needs of the city, then the corporation could have recourse to the 600,000 cubic feet of space, now virtually redundant, under the Government wartime emergency arrangements for providing cold storage space in the city.
On the second part of the Clause, it appears to me quite pointless that Leeds Corporation should seek powers to provide the means to make and sell ice, when the three private enterprise firms in the city have already cut down their own ice-making capacity because the need is no longer there. For these reasons, I support my hon. Friend who moved this Motion, and would point out that existing

facilities are already provided under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: This is the first of a series of objections taken to a very big Bill which contains 297 Clauses. I should not have thought this matter was worth objecting to, but it indicates the trend of thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In their opinion, wherever private enterprise interests clash with public interests, the private interests must be paramount. I should have thought that people who had associations with Leeds—the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) served many years on the City Council, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has a nodding acquaintance with the city through the Chamber of Commerce—would have thought it a cause for pride that Leeds, which is the fifth city in size in the country, needed powers of its own under a Private Bill. A city such as Leeds should not have to depend on general powers which may be suitable for "Little Winking-on-the-Wold" or some other of the smaller places. The whole idea of local government is that it should be self-respecting, and a big city like Leeds should not have to rely on general powers.
There is nothing new in this. The City of Leeds seeks general powers to act on the authority of the corporation. One of the powers sought is to remove as soon as practicable the abattoir from its present site between the Kirkgate Market and the Central Bus Station to a site further away from the city centre. For obvious reasons, it is undesirable that an abattoir should be sited in the centre of the city. It is objectionable to the public, and anyone who has had experience of slaughter-houses will know that it is more humane that animals should not be brought into the centre of a city, especially a city such as Leeds.
At present there are cold stores available near the abattoir, but if it is moved further from the city centre, cold-storage facilities will be needed. We are speaking about services ancillary to the cold stores, but hon. Gentlemen opposite somehow put the question of the cold stores and private interests before the moving of the abattoir. They usually get their logic upside down.

Mr. Bidgood: I made it clear in my opening remarks that no one denied that cold-storage facilities were desirable in a modern abattoir.

Mr. Pannell: if the hon. Gentleman agrees that such facilities are necessary in a modern abattoir and that Leeds should build a modern abattoir, what is his objection?

Mr. Bidgood: Because powers are available under existing legislation.

Mr. Pannell: I will come to that in a moment. I suggest that under existing legislation the corporation must seek the consent of the Minister. I should have thought that as Leeds will proceed to provide a modern abattoir the corporation should have the power in a general powers Bill.
It is true that the corporation is given power under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, with the consent of the Minister, to provide a cold store and is given compulsory purchase powers for that purpose. But notice has to be given of the corporation's proposals. The provisions of the 1955 Act have widened the powers of the corporation, but it seems foolish that the corporation of a large city like Leeds should need to obtain the consent of the Minister if it desires to build a new abattoir. In other words, the consent of the Minister is not required to build the abattoir, but it is required if a cold store is to be added. It would seem reasonable to seek that power within this Bill.
Although the Minister—and I shall be interested in what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has to say about this—recommends the desirability of the inclusion of a cold store, a refrigeration plant has been included because the corporation is advised that it is possible to connect to the refrigeration plant of a cold store a freezing plant to produce ice, which may enable the corporation to make the maximum use of the plant which it wishes to provide.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to competition with private enterprise. It is a curious thing that private enterprise always burks competition with public enterprise. I should have thought that, apart from anything else, public and private enterprise might stand up one to the other in this matter. This is quite a

simple proposal to build a new abattoir. After all, the feelings of most people are outraged at the use of old-fashioned abattoirs, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have promoted legislation to increase the inspection of modern abattoirs and the methods of slaughtering beasts. The corporation desires to build a new and modern abattoir. Hon. Members opposite have argued that power to do so should not be included in this general powers Bill, but that the corporation should ask for consent under an Act containing general powers.

Mr. Hirst: And why not?

Mr. Pannell: If there be so little between us, I should have thought it reasonable to grant the power within this Bill.

7.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who is very able in presenting cases of this sort, seemed hard pressed on this occasion. However, it is not my purpose to attempt to defend my hon. Friends, except that it so happens that the points I wish to put coincide with what they said.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman had better not start off like that so early in the proceedings. He is speaking from a brief prepared by civil servants; my brief was prepared by the town clerk.

Mr. Nicholls: If it is to be a battle of civil servants versus the town clerk, may the best man win.
When he was referring to unnecessary instructions, the hon. Gentleman should have borne in mind that there are 297 Clauses in this Bill and the number being objected to at this stage seems very small. The hon. Gentleman said it was not right that we should interfere with a request for general powers. I do not think it is a good thing to approve unnecessary powers. My hon. Friends were perfectly right in making the point that there is no need for these powers in this Bill, because the corporation already has the necessary power under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. The corporation has its slaughter house and automatically it could, with the consent of the Minister, get what it wants through that Section.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to object to the fact that the consent of the Minister would have to be given. But even under this Clause the corporation would still have to get the consent of the Minister in the sense that it would have to apply for loan sanction which would call for the sponsorship of a Government Department; I have no doubt it would be my Department. The argument that there is no need for this would apply when consideration was given to whether such consent should be provided.
Apart from the administrative points which have been made and which I have underlined, I do not think the existing conditions in the city call for such powers. There are commercial cold-air stores with a capacity in excess of 300,000 cubic feet which is only half used at a time when such facilities are being used extensively throughout the country. Even though something might happen which would result in the pressure for cold-air storage becoming abnormal, and a greater cubic capacity was necessary in Leeds, we have the Government cold stores situated there which have capacity of more than 500,000 cubic feet. At present these stores are on a care and maintenance basis because of a promise given that the accommodation so provided would not be used in competition with commercial undertakings. That promise has been supported from both sides of the House, but should the demand for cold store facilities be such that that capacity was needed, we should be relieved from that promise. The promise holds good only so long as we do not interfere with the general commercial interests, under conditions of normal demand.
I should have thought that upon reflection hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are supporting the Clause might appreciate that there really is no necessity for these powers—they have all the powers they want under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act—and that there is no call for the Clause at this time. If any abnormal situation arose the Government cold stores which now exist would form a reserve. They cannot be used at the moment, but they could be used then.
As my hon. Friends said, the commercial stores have already found that,

in selling ice, there is nothing like the demand for their capacity, and to create even greater capacity in a market which is nothing like half used at the moment would be very bad business. It is with those considerations in mind that I support what has been said by my hon. Friends. We feel that practical as well as administrative circumstances really do not justify the acceptance of this Clause.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am surprised that hon. Members opposite object to the Clause. I do not think that a question of principle is involved here; I will try to convince them of that. As has already been fully explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), the corporation wishes to remove the existing abattoir from the centre of the city. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that intention. The corporation wants to move it further out for reasons which we all agree about. At the moment, cold stores are available near the existing abattoir, but when it is moved out other cold stores will have to be near it. It is not quite satisfactory to say that cold stores are available here and there all over the place; everything depends where the abattoir is sited. It may be possible to place it near other cold stores; no doubt the council will take that possibility into account, but clearly, if it is to move the abattoir out, cold stores must be sited near the new building. Surely nobody would challenge the desirability of that.

Mr. H. Nicholls: indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell: If that is agreed, it seems to me to dispose of the argument that the corporation will be able to make use of existing storage.
I now turn to the other argument which was used by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), namely, that powers already exist under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. The view of the corporation is that those powers exist provided that the Minister gives consent, and it feels—not unreasonably, I think—that it is rather an absurd situation that it should have powers to build an abattoir without the Minister's consent, but not powers to build a cold store to serve that abattoir. That is an almost absurd situation.
It is all very well for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say, "After all, the Government have the ultimate power in any case, because of the loan sanction position," but I think he would agree that it is highly unusual, to say the least, for the Government to exercise their power of loan sanction in a matter of this kind in order to control or prevent a council from doing something which it would have power to do under a private Bill of this kind. I think that it is really absurd to ask a city as important as Leeds to have to run to the Minister on this account. We should be a little careful not always to give way to the demand from Whitehall that it must have this power. I thought that hon. Members opposite would have shown a little more enthusiasm for the independence of local government, and would not have wished to back up the Minister upon every possible occasion.

Mr. H. Nicholls: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that if the Corporation has to apply for loan sanction it would not be my Department which would have to give it—but we should be asked to sponsor it. The right hon. Gentleman understands that if we felt that, under all the circumstances which existed in the city, we could not sponsor it with our hands on our hearts, we should be in duty bound to say that in our view, at the moment, loan sanction should not be given.

Mr. Gaitskell: I could turn that argument round the other way and ask the hon. Gentleman why, in that event, he objects to the Clause. It is difficult to understand why he does object, if he has this power anyway. I think it is most unlikely that if the Leeds Council had this power the hon. Gentleman's Department would refuse to sponsor such a project.

Mr. Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman is missing one of the points that I endeavoured to make, namely, that if the powers under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act were sought, consideration would be given to the nature of the cold store and the abattoir. That is probably all that Leeds needs at the moment, but under the general powers, whether they intend to or not, they could go into a much bigger way of business. That is one of the reasons why we object to the Clause.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think we must assume that the corporation of a large city like Leeds has some common sense in these matters. It is not likely to wish to build a cold store miles away from an abattoir, if it needs that cold store near the abattoir. I am authorised to say that if these powers are granted the cold store will be run upon an economic basis. There is no question of any charge to ratepayers.
That brings me to my last point—the power to be given, under subsection (2), to sell ice—which I regard as quite a reasonable proposition. It is possible to connect to the refrigeration plant of a cold store a freezing plant to produce ice which will help the council to make the whole project into a paying proposition. There is really no reason to object to that once we have conceded the principle—which I think should be conceded—that the corporation should be allowed to build its cold store.
If we accept the view that the abattoir should be moved—and we do—and if we accept the view that a cold store must be sited near the abattoir—as I think we do—it is surely reasonable to say to Leeds Corporation, "You may do this, and take powers to do so without having to run to the Minister. as is the case at the moment." I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press their objections to the Clause.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: The first thing I noticed about the debate on this Clause was that none of the three Members opposite who have opposed it represents a Leeds constituency. That is a little unusual.

Mr. Bidgood: I would point out that I have represented a ward of the City of Leeds for eight years, on the Leeds City Council.

Miss Alice Bacon: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) might also explain that he twice tried to represent a constituency in Leeds, without success.

Mr. Jones: I was merely seeking to call attention to the fact that neither the mover nor the seconder of this Instruction represents a Leeds constituency. Whether or not the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) once represented a ward of Leeds makes no difference.


The fact is that he does not represent the city which is seeking these powers. Leeds has at least one representative upon the benches opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two."] Two, then.
Neither has seen fit to speak. That is strange. Neither has yet addressed the House, giving reasons why this Clause should be accepted or rejected. I also thought it unusual for the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take two bites at the cherry. I should have thought it would have been good enough for the Government Department to rely upon the report which it will make to the Private Bill Committee upstairs.
When a Private Bill has had its Second Reading, the Ministry can make a report concerning the Clause to the Committee upstairs, which examines the Bill in detail. An opportunity is then afforded to Parliamentary counsel to put the case for and against the Clause. That is the general practice, as I understand it. When the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill it allows the details of that Bill—and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that this is a matter of detail—to be examined upstairs.
The case which the Minister sought to make against the provision was very weak. He pointed out that under Section 80 of the Food and Drugs Act, Leeds Corporation already has power to build an abattoir. Of course, that is only part of the story, because subsection (2) provides that if the corporation gets this power it will be entitled to sell ice—a power which will not be given to it under the Food and Drugs Act. That is a substantial point which has been overlooked, apparently, even in the Joint Parliamentary's well-prepared brief. I should have thought that that aspect of the case would have appealed to the Government. The authority is not only seeking to build an abattoir with cold storage space, but is also seeking to provide additional services for the citizens of Leeds through the sale of ice.
It seems to me that this is a very desirable Clause for a city of this size, and even if it is opposed, and the private interests in Leeds take exception to it, I hope it will be sent to Committee upstairs. I may be right or wrong, but I have a suspicion that the hon. Member

for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe have an interest in private enterprise in Leeds. They have not declared it, but—

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member must not make remarks of that nature. I have nothing at all to do with cold storage or ice or anything like it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Jones: I did not say that the hon. Members had an interest in this particular matter. What I am saying is that if they have the interest which it is suggested they have in Leeds, their interest as ratepayers in the City of Leeds, then the sale of ice in order to recoup some of the expenditure on the cold storage should appeal to them.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I put my hon. Friend right? The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has been a President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce and he is interested in the Chamber of Commerce. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) has had business interests in Leeds. They have that collective feeling for unity on their side which the trade unions have on ours. The hon. Member for Shipley is speaking on behalf of the philosophy with which he is in sympathy.

Mr. Jones: We are aware that the hon. Member for Shipley has had an interest in the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, because he told us so more than once when the Transport Bill of 1953 was going through the House. We have no doubt about his interest in the commerce of Leeds. I should have thought, therefore, that even if the Clause were contentious it would be far better to examine it upstairs in Committee, with the provisions provided for the Committee to hear counsel for and against the Clause. I hope that the Motion will be rejected.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Now that we have heard hon. Members opposite from Hampstead, Kent, Normanton and West Hartlepools speaking—

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should be glad if you would put the hon. Member right. Hon. Members who are returned on the suffrage of a constituency are deemed to represent


that constituency, and any suggestion that I represent Kent, or that one of my hon. Friends represents Hampstead, is the sort of impertinence with which I hope you will deal.

Mr. Speaker: I thought it was just an error of nomenclature.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I chose my words very carefully. I said "Members from," and if that is offensive to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), there are many ways in which he can take advantage of the rules of the House to let his objections be known. If he is not from where I said he was, he can put a Motion on the Order Paper.
Having heard hon. Members from all parts of the country except Leeds, I see no reason why a Member from a Liverpool constituency should not have a word. At any rate, I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the City of Leeds, having spent quite a long time there and having enjoyed the time I was in the city. I think the House is agreed that the provision of a modern abattoir, properly sited, is a very desirable venture for the City of Leeds, and if it is provided it is quite reasonable that it should be accompanied by the appropriate facilities for cold storage.
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that these miracles happened in the past without the great city corporations of the country getting themselves into an ideological frenzy about how they were to be provided. Has any hon. Member opposite ever considered whether private enterprise might not be both able and willing to provide the cold storage facilities in Leeds in appropriate situations and at the appropriate time to suit the convenience of the abattoirs to be built by the corporation? That is precisely what happened in the past with unfailing regularity, and it operated with great economy and efficiency to the great advantage of all concerned.
Has any approach been made by the corporation to find out whether private enterprise is willing to undertake this work? Or is this simply a city steam roller, determined to force its will on the people who have carried this burden for so long, even to the point of driving them out of business, without regard for what

are their legitimate, however objectionable, interests? Is that what the party opposite propose shall happen? Do they propose that the whole parliamentary machine shall be brought into operation to enable the corporation to conduct that kind of operation?
It seems to me that that is not what Parliament means by a virile, viable local government. A virile, viable local government does not mean putting in the hands of locally elected representatives the power to crush the life out of private business. It means that local representatives shall have the power to consider where lies the predominant public interest and to try to serve that predominant public interest, either by using local powers and setting up municipal operations of one kind or another or by enlisting the aid of private enterprise to see that those operations are efficiently carried out.
I think that the objections to the Clause which have been voiced by my hon. Friends have been legitimately directed towards seeing that that cannot happen in our society, where we have to balance and merge these two by no means conflicting aspects of our economy.
Similar thoughts arise over whether the corporation should be allowed to make and sell ice. I have no doubt that all the hon. Members from foreign parts, except Leeds, who have spoken are in a position to say—I am not—whether enough ice is being produced in Leeds at present. All I say is that until someone has established whether there is a need for ice which private enterprise is failing to satisfy, there is no valid reason that the corporation should use its great powers and public finance in order to fulfil a need which is already being met.

Mr. D. Jones: rose—

Mr. Thompson: I hope the hon. Member will contain himself, although I know he is full of fervour and of much knowledge which the House needs.
Personally, I hold no ideological views which say that municipal trading is always and inevitably wrong and undesirable. Far from it. I like to see local authorities deciding these things for themselves. But if whatever need exists for ice in Leeds, or in any other city, or the need for any other commodity or service, is being satisfied, then there is no justification whatever for the House giving to


a public authority the right to step in and overwhelm the resources of the private operator. I very much hope that the House will not give to Leeds powers which will enable it to conduct operations which apparently are not needed—powers

which may easily be abused and which it would require more than we have heard this evening to justify.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 132.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.
Green A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Page, R. G.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Ashton, H.
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, J. W. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pott, H. P.


Balniel Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Banks, Col. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Barber, Anthony
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Ramsden, J. E.


Barter, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Redmayne, M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Holt, A. F.
Roper, Sir Harold


Body, R. F.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Russell, R. S.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Bryan, P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. C. T.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Storey, S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Studholme, H. G.


Channon, H.
Kaberry, D.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kirk, P. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lagden, G. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crouch, R. F.
Leburn, W. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vosper, D. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mathew, R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Gibson-Watt, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Godber, J. B.
Nicholls, Harmar



Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wing Commander Bullus and


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nugent, G. R. H.
Mr. Hirst.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Oakshott, H. D.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Bartley, P.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Boardman, H.
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, L, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Janner, B.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Cronin, J. D.
Grey, C. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)




Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deane Valley)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lawson, C. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Viant, S. P.


Logan, D. G.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, A. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McGhee, H. G.
Randall, H. E.
West, D. G.


McInnes, J.
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mahon, S.
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short, E. W.
Willey, Frederick


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mellish, R. J.
Skeffington, A. M.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Winter-bottom, Richard


Mort, D. L.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woof, R. E.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Oram, A. E.
Steele, T.



Oswald, T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Mr. Charles Pannell and




Miss Alice Bacon.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Donald Kaberry: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 269.
Clause 269 deals with the question of concessionary fares. By virtue of an Act passed last year, the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, power was granted to local authorities to retain the powers on concessions which they were in fact giving before 30th November, 1954. Having regard to the provisions of that Act, one is entitled to look to see what were the concessions which were being granted by Leeds Corporation at that date and especially to examine them in relation to the Clause now before us.
Many concessions were being granted by the Leeds Corporation transport undertaking, some of which are repeated in the Clause. There was, for example—I refer to instructions issued by the Leeds City transport department in June, 1951—free transport for blind persons, and that extended to blind persons' dogs. Consequently, it would seem that subsection (2, d) is not only unnecessary, but more restrictive because it does not specifically refer to blind persons' dogs. There was free return travel for scholars. There is no definition in relation to age for a scholar. Having regard to that, it would seem that subsection (2, b) and subsection (2. c) are also unnecessary.
There is in Leeds, and has been for some time, authority to provide free transport on the city's undertaking for uniformed disabled war wounded. This is a very necessary provision when one 
recalls that in my native city of Leeds, which I am proud to represent here and upon whose city council I served for some little time before becoming a Member of Parliament, authority has been given for those in hospital blue to have free transport. Consequently, it would appear that the majority of the provisions in subsection (2, e) may well be unnecessary.
Referring to instructions which have been received from Leeds Corporation by hon. Members representing the city, there are two main points only at issue in relation to the Clause. First of all, subsection (2, a) is a very wide provision. It gives the corporation power to make regulations to provide for concessionary fares for men over sixty-five and women over sixty. It is unlimited as to character or type. I believe that the sponsors in Leeds Corporation intend that the provision shall finally refer to persons who have retired and are in receipt of retirement pensions. However, the provision as it stands is far more extensive than that and would extend the concession to every person in Leeds over those ages whether or not there was any need for it.
Last year on the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) we discussed at some length whether or not municipal transport undertakings should be used to supplement any provisions which may be made by the Welfare State. It is submitted on behalf of those who oppose this provision that the affairs of the Leeds City transport department are not in a condition to support a concession of this kind. Indeed, provision is made


in the Clause for a grant in aid, presumably out of the general rate fund, to the transport department in order to recoup losses which may be sustained.
I understand it is also suggested that such concessionary travel may be limited to certain hours of the day when some of the transport may be running only half full. That is a very dangerous argument to advance. One can visualise an unfortunate extension of such an argument when any bus or tram in Leeds was running half full.
We feel that if a concession of this kind is really needed—there is no real evidence in Leeds of any need for it—the problem should be met by some other method than by having recourse to the city's general rate fund when many of us who live in the city feel that the rate burden is already far too excessive.
I now pass to the last matter, upon which there is unquestionably a clash of policy and principle. Indeed, I almost come to the rescue of the Socialist hon. Members who represent Leeds and save them from themselves. It is intended by means of subsection (2, f) that members of the Leeds City Council or a constituent authority of the corporation may have concessionary fares. I said that I nearly save the Leeds Socialist Members of Parliament from themselves. They may not know why. I will explain why. The last occasion when the matter was discussed by the Leeds electorate was in 1930, the year when I was first returned to the city council. We then had a municipal general election, electing a new council. The previous year the Socialist-controlled city council had 'voted to provide a similar concession—free tram rides for city councillors, as it was called. At the election the Socialist councillors on the Leeds City Council were overwhelmingly defeated on this very issue, and the Conservatives were returned with a substantial majority.
I recognise that there is a cleavage of opinion between hon. Members on this side of the House and our colleagues opposite.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: The hon. Member has referred to a difference of opinion—just

now he referred to a difference of principles—between the two sides of the House. Perhaps he will explain that in view of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House enjoy free travel to enable them to attend to the business of the House.

Mr. Kaberry: I agree. If I had been allowed to continue, I should have developed that point. There is a difference of principle with regard to the services of people serving upon local authorities. City councillors are elected in an honorary capacity. They know when they go to serve on the council that they have certain honorary and honourable tasks to perform. It is not felt that there is any hardship among Leeds city councillors. Indeed, there is no evidence of any hardship suffered by anyone now sitting on Leeds City Council that renders him unable adequately to discharge his duties because he has not concessionary fares.
There is a clash of principle. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) talked about the two sides of the Chamber. I hope that my colleagues from Leeds, including hon. Members opposite who are Socialists, will have received, as I have, a memorandum from the Leeds Liberal Federation which is moved strongly to oppose the proposition that there should be free bus rides for city councillors. Such is the clash of principle that I could go on talking about it for a long time, and I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite could argue about it a long time, too. There is a clear clash about the duties and obligations of the persons elected to serve on Leeds City Council. A councillor goes to the council knowing his obligations, and I say that he should not arrogate unto himself privileges that his fellow citizens have not.
The transport undertaking of the City of Leeds is not in a happy financial position. We frequently hear suggestions about increases in the fares. Many of us think they are far too high as it is. I should not like to see Leeds City councillors immune from the burden of increased bus fares in the City of Leeds. They should share that burden with their fellow citizens. Therefore, I hope the House will agree to this Motion and will reject the Clause.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Hirst: I beg to second the Motion.
I am very pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) for two reasons, first, because he is my Member of Parliament and represents me excellently here, and, secondly, because I think there are substantial merits in the case he has made against the Clause. I was a little puzzled about the proposal to give concessionary fares to people on retirement pensions, men over sixty-five and women over sixty, for there would seem to be certain difficulties involved in it. Would the pensioner have to take his birth certificate with him to the tram depot? The concession in the Clause is in line with other forms of subsidies favoured by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, such as those on milk and bread. They say that everybody should receive the benefit of the subsidies, whereas we on this side do not hold that view, but think that those who can afford to pay their whack should not be subsidised by other taxpayers or ratepayers.
It is suggested that Leeds Corporation would give the concessionary fares to people in receipt of retirement pensions. That is not necessarily a fair classification. There are many people who have been left small sums or who have annuities and who are not of the age to qualify for the State pension, and they have to pay their rates, and are struggling very hard to keep up appearances, and to do their best, and are very far from being well off. I do not think it is fair that they should have to subsidise people perhaps better off than they are. Least of all is it fair that they should do so because of some arbitrary classification. One can get into the most painful jam in deciding what is and is not fair.
However, there is very strong feeling indeed about giving the concessionary fares to city councillors. I support my hon. Friend in his protest against that proposition. I, personally, have not had the honour to sit on the council, and I have often regretted it, because I think local government service is a good thing to give, but I did a good deal of public work of other sorts before becoming a Member of this House. I have been engaged in many forms of public work. One does it on a voluntary basis. Local public work is a very different thing from

Parliamentary work. The local situation is different from the situation in Westminster, whither we are pulled hundreds of miles from our normal centre of gravity, and where we have to adopt a new centre of gravity—and, by Jove, what a great pull it exerts.
My hon. Friend was quite right to draw attention to the fact that the people of Leeds expressed themselves very forcibly upon this question many years ago. An hon. Member a little while ago talked about people having a nodding acquaintance with Leeds. I should like to deal with that. My father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather always lived in the City of Leeds. That amounts to more than a nodding acquaintance. It is my home town, and I am very proud of it. I do not always share the views of the people on the city council, but I am still very proud of Leeds. I live there, I go there regularly at weekends and I have served on a large number of bodies of one sort and another—not only the Chamber of Commerce, I would add—in the City of Leeds. For instance, I have worked for education there.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the support of this Clause by Socialists may be worth many votes to Conservatives in the next General Election. However, I do not take such a partisan view of the matter. I prefer to think of the broader issue. This is a proposition of which the ratepayers in general disapprove, and I do not think it should be pressed in this Bill, some of the provisions of which are good, and I support them.
In these matters we ought not to judge too much by protest meetings, any more than at General Elections we should judge public opinion only by the opinions of those who attend our meetings. They are false barometers of the situation. I do not wish to detain the House by arguing the case against the Clause at length. My hon. Friend has argued the case admirably, and it is my purpose only to dot the i's and cross the t's, so to speak, of his argument why the Clause should not be retained.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I think the nub of the question is the concessionary fares for councillors. All that has been said about the old-age pensioners was just airy persiflage. If they had the wit to do so,


hon. Gentlemen opposite could have put down an Amendment to the Clause, but, not having had the wit to do that, they have now got themselves into the difficulty that they are attempting to remove the whole Clause and to penalise old-age pensioners simply because they object to free fares for councillors.

Mr. Kaberry: I wonder if the hon. Member would refer to the Clause which refers to the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Pannell: I will deal with that, but I want first to deal with the main objection against the Leeds councillors. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) alluded to a verdict of the public twenty-five years ago to prove his case.

Mr. Kaberry: And current popular opinion in the city, with which I am in very close touch.

Mr. Pannell: Current popular opinion in the city was tested at a town meeting about this Clause when public-spirited citizens, public-spirited enough to attend the meeting, overwhelmingly approved it.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: By what percentage?

Mr. Pannell: I would ask the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to keep out of this argument for a moment, because I am addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster is asking me to define the percentages of a town's meeting in a city of 500,000 people, I must tell him that I am not that kind of mathematical calculating boy. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West must admit that Members of Parliament are entitled to concessionary fares. They get them in addition to the expense allowance on their £1,000 a year and the £2 a day Sessional allowance, and they have concessionary fares not only between London and Leeds, but between London and their homes in the environs of London.
There was a time when hon. Members opposite used just the same arguments against that sort of thing, but undoubtedly it can be proved that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members opposite take the £2 a day Sessional allowance which they opposed and take the concessionary fares. What is the answer, therefore,

in regard to concessionary fares being given to city councillors? It is, of course, that if the Leeds County Borough Council were a county council its members would have the right to have their fares paid. Members of county councils have their expenses defrayed.
When I was a member of Kent County Council I found at that time that people of the persuasion of hon. Members opposite were not backward in claiming expense allowances and car allowances which were given by that council. It is reasonable, therefore, that this concession should be made in this case—not that people should make any money out of a council. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West will not assert that a single member of Leeds City Council is financially advantaged by being a member. If anything, a member of the council is likely to be disadvantaged.

Mr. Kaberry: indicated assent.

Mr. Pannell: Before I became a Member of the House of Commons, I had a lower assessment for Income Tax than did my colleagues in the workshop because I spent my own money on public work. All we are concerned with is to make it possible for people with low incomes to serve upon public bodies. We are asking that men and women should not be disadvantaged because they are serving on Leeds City Council. No sum of money is at stake. It is merely a matter of issuing a pass—a practice which is common throughout the country. Employees of London Transport Executive receive passes, and even the old London General Omnibus Company gave passes to its employees.
The City of Glasgow still gives passes to its employees for travel on the underground, in trams and on buses, and the officers of the City of Leeds receive travel passes. No doubt many of those officers receive bigger remuneration than do Members of Parliament, but I do not make a point of that. They are given seven-day passes, and all we ask is that members of the city council who want to use these passes should be given them when they are engaged on public business.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West mentioned the Liberal Party. It is rather fantastic to mention that party in this connection. I was the only hon. Member for Leeds who was opposed by a


Liberal, and he lost his deposit. Therefore, we might as well keep the Liberals out of the argument as significant of the trend of opinion in Leeds. The hon. Member also referred to the affairs of Leeds City transport department. Is he going to suggest, against the whole background of the financial affairs of that department, that these concessionary fares are a significant item? It strikes me as one of the meanest things that the hon. Member, at the behest of his party, should put forward this proposal.
I have had a letter from a well-respected member of Leeds City Council. Naturally I shall not reveal the identity of the writer, but this is what she says:
As I am entirely dependent on my husband, who is an ordinary working man, I found transport a heavy item in addition to all the other expenses during the time I was a member of the City Council. In fact, we did not have a holiday for six years. We live nearly five miles from the city centre and pay 23s. rent. My daughter has just completed her education at the age of 20.
The fare to the bus station is 6d. each way. Each time I visited the Ward I represented, it cost me Is. 2d. In addition, of course, I had postages and telephone to pay. The wear and tear of my clothing was the same as if I were working.
Usually I had committees on three or four afternoons each week; special school visits, one or two each month in the mornings; speech days, meetings of boards of governors, special exhibitions; visits to warehouses to buy clothing for Central Purchasing Department. I had to keep contact with the Civic Theatre and the rehearsal rooms to sign overtime sheets etc. at least once each week. I should say 6s. was the minimum each week which I spent on fares for council work only. I consider that I am £1 a week better off now that I am off the council,
Here is a working woman, dependent on her husband's salary, making her contribution to the civic life of the city. It is a far more altruistic contribution than that of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, or myself. She is personally disadvantaged and this is the kind of member the hon. Member is trying to keep off the council. I should have thought that the Conservative Party in Leeds would have been bigger-minded than to try to inflict this kind of penalty.
There was an Alderman Rafferty who expressed this view at a town's meeting. He is reported as having said at that meeting:
The Council members opposing this facility to councillors rolled up to Council and Committee meetings in cars that are in many cases

bought and maintained out of the expenses accounts of the firms with which the councillors are connected, whereas Labour councillors had to find travel fares to attend numerous Council and Committee meetings and also attend meetings of other bodies on which they represented the Council—at the expense of their weekly budget; on wages that are often less than the normal levels due to attendance on Council business, and absence from work that the meagre broken-time allowance, where it can be claimed, does not cover or compensate.
Members can claim reimbursement of fares outside the city but not within the city. In the case of a place as big as Leeds, the fifth city in the country, those expenses are considerable. I hope that hon. Members opposite will have second thoughts on this subject. I believe that it was not their intention to disadvantage people over sixty-five years of age, but in the context of the speeches of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), one would have thought that that was so. One would have thought that what was being proposed was free passage on municipal transport for those over sixty-five. That is not the case.
Clause 269 states:
Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment or in any rule of law to the contrary it shall be lawful for the Corporation to make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions to qualified persons travelling on the public service vehicles operated by the Corporation …
The Clause, therefore, refers to concessions. It does not refer to free passes. I believe that I am perfectly right in saying that. My understanding from conversations with Corporation officials is that what they have in mind is to make special concessions in off-peak hours to people over this age and that they are to be expressly excluded at peak hours.

Mr. Kaberry: But does not that include males over sixty-five and females over sixty years of age?

Mr. Pannell: Obviously, I would not attempt to deceive the hon. Gentleman, any my understanding of this is that what is intended here is that concessions shall be granted. If the Transport Committee evolves a scheme whereby these people over sixty-five can travel at child's fares in off-peak hours, that may be a financial advantage to the undertaking and not a financial loss. It is intended that these old people shall not get in the way during peak hours.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the words in the Bill he will see that the operative words are "travel concessions." There is nothing in this Bill which takes away from the flexibility of the corporation in bringing into operation anything it wishes to do towards that end. The hon. Gentleman has served the City of Leeds for some time and he knows that councils do not fly in the face of public opinion. Bearing in mind the difficulties of Leeds transport department, and the fact that the city is changing over from trams to omnibuses, which is an expensive process, it is obvious that these things must be brought about naturally.

Mr. Hirst: The definition in subsection (7) reads:
 'travel concession' means the reduction or waiver of a fare or charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has given me my point that the Clause is flexible. It does say "reduction."

Mr. Hirst: It also says "waiver."

Mr. Pannell: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take it in good faith from me that I am saying quite calmly to him, with the full authority of the corporation, that in this context the corporation is considering a reduction of fares in off-peak hours. Obviously, every byelaw and regulation cannot be put into a Bill of this size. As I understand that phrase, it is a statement of fact that there is to be a reduction in off-peak hours. I believe I am right. In any case, it is a matter within the discretion of the corporation.

Mr. Hirst: Of course I accept the good faith of the hon. Gentleman. There was no suggestion that I did not do so. That may be the idea of the present corporation, but the powers taken in a Bill are not for its present members or for whoever has briefed the hon. Gentleman. They are permanent until altered by Parliament.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman may not have much experience of Private Bills—

Mr. Hirst: I have not a lot of faith in corporations.

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman approaches this matter in that way, that he has little or no faith in the Leeds Corporation, I suggest that his opposition to the Bill appears to be capricious and malicious. Obviously the corporation must insert in the Bill words which ensure a degree of flexibility. In the case of the councillors, I admit that the concession is wider. In the other case it is a reduction. Therefore, bearing those things in mind and knowing the large number of people over the age of sixty-five who go to work, the council will presumably bring in regulations and bye-laws or will lay a scheme which will prevent abuse. Of course, it will not make the sky the limit. But a city as large as Leeds must act in a large and honourable way and not as meanly as the hon. Gentleman seems to think it should act.
This is a concession which is given by public undertakings to their employees and officials. This is common in many other corporations, so there seems little sense in denying it to Leeds. It should go out clearly from this House that what the members of Leeds Corporation are asking for is not any financial advantage from public service, but that they shall not be disadvantaged by public service.
I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to search his mind, because he knows the members of the city council better than I do. If he does so, he will remember many men and women who have served the corporation with great dignity for years on both sides of the council. Many have grown old in the service of the corporation. Some are old-age pensioners. The hon. Gentleman would leave those outside the concession also. If we had to eliminate everybody over the age of sixty-five from local government the position would be grim, so I should have thought that this was a reasonable Clause.
There is so little between us on the explanation I have given that, even at this stage, I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press an objection to this concession which is accorded to other cities. Let it go out from this House that local government is not the junior partner, but an equal partner in the public service with us.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I apologise for intervening in a Leeds debate. I do so because the proposal to increase the number of people to whom concessions are given follows closely on the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Bill, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House last year.
Reference has been made to disabled persons, and the hon. Gentleman said that as Leeds now gives concessions to disabled persons in uniform the majority of such persons would be covered. I should have thought that only a minority of disabled people would now be in uniform. For instance, this limitation excludes those disabled in industry, all the people disabled on the roads, and so on. Generally speaking, when a person becomes disabled he suffers some reduction of income. Therefore, there is a perfectly good case for extending this concession to all disabled persons, whether they are in uniform or not.
On the question of young people and small children, I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) will agree that, since the Leeds scheme was introduced, the school-leaving age has been raised by one year and that boys and girls of 15 are not now covered. So at any rate there is a case for increasing the age from 14 to 15.

Mr. Kaberry: Those concessions refer to school children and there is no definition of age. Presumably a child is a school child as long as he is going to school, whether he is 14 or 15. They get the concessions now, so the hon. Gentleman and I are not at issue.

Mr. Short: I am sorry, but this is general throughout the country. The concession stops at 14.
On the question of councillors' travelling expenses, hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that this concession is granted only by Labour councillors, but that is not so. At the time my Bill went through the House I made a lot of research on this point. I discovered that this concession is granted by many councils throughout the country, about half of which are Conservative and the other half are Labour. It is done by my own City Council in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has a Conservative majority;

it is done in Edinburgh, and in many other places.
The present scheme to give travelling expenses to councillors does not apply to borough councillors travelling within their own borough. A man can travel 8 or 10 miles in his own borough, but can claim no expenses, A member of a district council may travel only 5 miles to the Shire Hall and yet be able to claim travelling expenses.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West referred to his own services on the Leeds City Council, and he will know, as we all know, that to serve on a big borough council involves an enormous amount of committee work. It is quite common for a city councillor for a city the size of Leeds to have to attend twelve, fifteen and sometimes twenty meetings a week. I have done that, as no doubt has the hon. Member, and it imposes a considerable financial burden on people who live on the outskirts of their city.
This is a very modest request in respect of old-age pensioners. In "Britain Strong and Free" there was a section dealing with local government which said that the Conservative Party wanted to give local government more discretion and more freedom. Surely it is fair and reasonable to give local government this simple discretion to make this modest extension to our social services to help old people. The Conservative Party made a song about local government freedom and discretion. Here is an opportunity to give a big city council a little more discretion to do something to 'help its own people.
The hon. Member said that the Leeds undertaking was in a bad way financially, but it is not alone in that most transport undertakings are in a bad way. I would point out that in our case, and in the case, I think, of many councils who have given concessions to old people, the usual practice is to give concessionary fares in the slack periods of the day. We usually find that it does not result in a reduction of income, but puts more passengers on the buses in the afternoons than otherwise would use them. On the whole, the transport undertaking probably gains.
Since the war our big cities, such as Newcastle and Leeds, have changed, and there has been a big movement of population from the old central areas to the


perimeters. The families who go to the perimeters are usually young families with children. We all know that old people like to visit their children and grandchildren. They like to go by bus in the afternoon, when not many people are travelling, to the new housing estates to visit their children and grandchildren. This is a wonderful opportunity to enable them to do that.
I estimated last year that the type of concession mentioned here was made available to between 15 million and 16 million people throughout the country by last year's Act. I can see no reason that any other local authority who wishes to introduce such concessions should not be able to do so. It is a very modest extension of our social services. I hope that hon. Members opposite will see that it gives local government a little more freedom and discretion and will support it. I appeal to them to look at it fairly and squarely. If they do, I am sure they will support it.

8.34 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: After the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), there is little that I want to add; but I want to emphasise two points. The first concerns concessionary fares for councillors and the great anomaly which exists between city and county areas.
The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) said that I live at Normanton, and I should like the House to know that Normanton is on the borders of Leeds and just inside the West Riding area. The county town, with the county hall, is Wakefield, five miles from my home. The county councillor representing me and travelling five miles to Wakefield can be reimbursed for the whole of his travelling expenses under Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1948, but a borough councillor living some five or six miles from the centre of Leeds cannot have his expenses reimbursed.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry), said there was no evidence that anyone was finding it difficult to carry out his councillor's duties through inability to pay the fares. I know that people struggle on somehow, but I want to give the House two examples, one of a councillor and one of an alderman, from my constituency, One

alderman is an old-age pensioner who actually lives in the last house on the southern side of the city of Leeds; indeed, his house is in Leeds and his garden is in the county area. Probably the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West knows who it is I have in mind, and he will agree that the old gentleman is an exceedingly public-spirited man who has done a great deal under difficult circumstances. That alderman has to pay the whole of his travelling expenses out of his retirement pension. That is just one example; I am sure there are many others. I have in mind also one of my councillors, a woman who is a widow, again with a very small income. She is doing an enormous amount of work. She is chairman of one of the sub-committees in Leeds.
These are the people who will be helped. It does seem to me to be a great anomaly that this House should have made provision for people who live in the county area but not for people who live in the city area.
I notice that the Instruction which is being proposed by hon. Members opposite is an instruction to delete the whole Clause. That means that we shall be deleting, for example, the proposal to raise the age from 18 to 19 for those who are in full-time attendance at school or university. It means that we shall be denying to retirement pensioners the right to concessionary travel.
I re-emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that the city council is quite prepared to make regulations to provide that these concessions shall only be given to older people after the peak hours from ten o'clock in the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon. Knowing the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West as I do, and knowing that he must realise he is going to deny to old-age pensioners in Leeds the right to these concessions, I do ask him even now to withdraw this Instruction.
Something was said about the will of the people of Leeds. At the town's meeting, this proposal now being put forward tonight was defeated by 277 votes to 85. It was rather significant that the person who moved the rejection of this Clause at the town's meeting was a Mr. Booth, who is one of the only two elected representatives in the city


who receives payment of his expenses because he happens to be an auditor for the city.
I do appeal to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, to withdraw this Instruction. I feel he will be doing great injustice to a great many people if he does not do so.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I should like to say one or two words as one who comes from the city of Birmingham. Citizens of Birmingham enjoy every one of these proposals in this Bill, and I cannot for the life of me understand why we in Birmingham—glad though we are to do so—should enjoy them while the citizens of Leeds should not be allowed to do so.
I wish to say a word about local government. Surely this is precisely a matter which should be left to the ratepayers and electors of Leeds. There is every possible safeguard here. First of all, there is the town's poll, which has been referred to.

Mr. Kaberry: There was no town's poll, if I may remind the hon. Member.

Mr. Howell: I was coming to that. That was a helpful interpolation, and I thank the hon. Member for it. There was a town's meeting. There could in fact have been a town's poll; a town's poll could have been requested so that this matter might have been taken to the vote of the people. That was not done. Obviously, if there could be only 85 people from the whole city to go to the meeting to object, not many people would vote in a town's poll. Surely, although we might not agree with town's polls—I personally do not—as long as they are in being we must have regard to the fact that the rights of the ratepayers and electors of Leeds to have a town's poll were exercised on this occasion.
There is another very great safeguard. It is that even if the Clause is accepted in its entirety, if the citizens of Leeds do not like it they will turf out their council at the next election. Why should these powers not be available to the citizens of Leeds? Why should people who object not make their objections known at the next local election?
I believe it is absolutely essential in the changing pattern of our society to keep old people mobile. If there is anything which is a great cost on the Exchequer and local government finances it is the cost of putting old people into old peoples' homes. It is essential to encourage old people to move about and to visit relatives, their allotments and old peoples' clubs. We should keep old people on the move as much as we possibly can. The way to do that is to encourage them to use city transport in off-peak hours. We do that in Birmingham where it is greatly appreciated and where it is not a party matter. I am amazed that in Leeds it is a party matter. In Birmingham it went through with hardly any objection.
I come to subsection (2. f). I have in my hand the pass which entitles me as a city councillor in Birmingham to ride free on Birmingham city transport in pursuance of my duties. What justification is there for my having a pass to travel around Birmingham visiting my ward when colleagues in Leeds cannot have the same facility? I hope that iii those circumstances the objection will be withdrawn.
There is one final point I should like to make. When the Birmingham Corporation Bill was going through Committee I watched its progress on behalf of the council. I was delighted that the Ministry of Transport offered no objection to it in Committee. It provided precisely the same sort of facilities as this Bill, and in view of the Ministry's attitude only a month or two ago, I hope that the Government will advise the House to take the same course with this Bill, which has been subjected to the test of local opinion, which is the acid test. All of us ought to be very jealous indeed to preserve the rights of local government, especially when expressed in such an overwhelming manner as in this case.

8.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) spoke of my replying, but misunderstood my position in this matter. This is a Private Bill and it is only because it deals with very much the same matter as that to which the hon. Member referred, that I feel obliged to say something upon the subject. I note what the


hon. Member has said about the Ministry not feeling obliged to make any comment upon the merits of proposals of this kind when a previous Bill went forward. I indicated the attitude of the Government on the Second Reading of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) last year. It is the view of the Government that a local authority is entitled to apply to Parliament for powers to grant concessions to aged people and people suffering from certain disabilities.
Subsection (2, f) of Clause 269 really largely reproduces a certain provision which was the subject of an Amendment moved to the Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, and if I venture to quote what I said on that occasion, it is because I believe it to be still true. I pointed out that, under the Local Government Act, 1948, passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office, it was expressly provided that travelling expenses should not be paid to a member of the council of a borough, including a metropolitan borough, of an urban district or of a rural parish. I said that I was disposed to wonder why this distinction had been drawn. I was impressed in the Committee upstairs with the facts put forward by some hon. Gentlemen, and I have been impressed today by the arguments put forward from the other side of the House. I then said:
I think that at some time or another it would be wise for Parliament to consider again whether the distinction that was then drawn has really any validity or substance in it.
I still say exactly the same thing tonight, I went on to say that the way the matter ought to be dealt with was by amending the Act of 1948, and I added:
It is nearly always unwise to try to effect a change in one branch of the law by incorporating an Amendment in legislation which is purporting to deal with another matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 10th March, 1955; c. 138.]
I would therefore say that, while I am frankly sympathetic—speaking for myself, and not for the Government in this particular matter—[Interruption.] Oh yes, indeed I am—to the idea of looking again at the provisions of the Act of 1948, I think my hon. Friends are fully justified in opposing a Clause in a Private Bill which will, in fact, have the effect of

enabling a single city to do something which other cities are not entitled to do under the general law of the land.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with two things. One is that he cannot express sympathy when he stands at that Box, because when he stands at that Box he is presumed to be speaking for the Government. The next thing is that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? It is very difficult in the House for hon. Members to know when hon. Gentlemen who are called by you as spokesmen for the Government side are speaking for themselves and when they are speaking for the Government. I should like your guidance on whether it is possible for some indication to be given at the beginning of their speeches.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has nothing whatever to do with me. I was merely saying that I understood that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was making a second speech.

Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope you will extend to me the usual courtesy extended to a Member in charge of a Clause.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker I did not think that the Parliamentary Secretary had finished his speech but had given way to an interruption to ask a question. Indeed I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT will show tomorrow that the hon. Gentleman was in the middle of a sentence, but, if it was your impression that the Parliamentary Secretary had finished, may I say that I propose to rise and see if I can catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman had resumed his seat.

Mr. Pannell: I intervened in this matter, it is a Leeds matter, to ask two


points of the hon. Gentleman. I have dealt with the first, and the second which I was coming to—I did not think my intervention was unduly long—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member. I understood, apparently mistakenly, that the Parliamentary Secretary had resumed his seat.

Mr. Pannell: I was coming to the point at which I propose to ask the hon. Gentleman how he could maintain his objection to this being put into a Private Bill, bearing in mind that he had not answered the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) about why he had changed his tune since the Birmingham Bill, when he raised no objection at all?

Mr. Short: Before the Parliamentary Secretary resumes his speech, may I ask that he deal with this point? As I understand him now, he has advised his hon. Friends to vote against this Clause. May I ask how he squares that with the fact that three weeks before the General Election, when the election was announced, the Prime Minister himself intervened—as the hon. Gentleman himself well knows—to save my Bill when most Government legislation was washed out. The Government then went out of their way to provide time for my Bill when the General Election was imminent. How does the Parliamentary Secretary square that with the fact that he is now advising his hon. Friends to vote against this Clause?

Mr. Molson: I will deal with the second point first, because the answer is so simple and so extremely obvious. I was the Minister charged with the task of enabling the hon. Gentleman's Bill to reach the Statute Book. We took the view, which I made perfectly plain in my Second Reading speech on that occasion, that where local authorities had in good faith been granting certain concessions, we thought it fair they should remain. Under what I still like to call the "Short Act," the Leeds Corporation is entitled at the present time to grant any concession which was being granted before the day laid down in the Act.
What I am saying today is in accordance with what I said then; that other local authorities can come forward and

promote Private Bills. The Leeds Corporation is accordingly now seeking certain additional powers from this House.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman invited them to come forward.

Mr. Molson: I did not undertake that anything they asked for would receive the support of the Government. The Leeds Corporation is coming forward. It has taken advantage of the invitation, and I do not know what is the grievance. What is being asked for in subsection (2f) of Clause 269 is almost exactly what was proposed in an Amendment moved to the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central and which I opposed on behalf of the Government on that occasion. This is completely and entirely consistent with the line I took on behalf of the Government on that occasion.

Mr. Short: This is precisely the same Clause which the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to put on the Statute Book.

Mr. William Ross: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that Leeds Corporation is asking for something new. Can he tell us how many local authorities in Scotland and in England—I could tell him of half-a-dozen in Scotland—

Mr. Nabarro: What about Wales?

Mr. G. Thomas: Leave Wales alone.

Mr. Ross: —including Edinburgh and Glasgow, already have this provision? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many authorities in the country have already got it?

8.55 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I have no intention of intervening in the debate except to say that I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to convey the impression that he is speaking for himself. I do not see how he can do so, speaking from that Front Bench. We must assume that he is speaking with some Governmental authority. He said that he supported, in principle, what is required by Leeds City Council in this Bill, and that he would, therefore, like to see some amendment to the 1948 Act—that is, where he tried to convey that he was


speaking for himself—in order to give the Leeds authority the very thing for which it is now asking.
In effect, he is saying that he supports the principle of the Bill but also thinks it right to support the Instruction. I do not see how he can marry those two statements. Surely, in the circumstances, if he supports the Instruction he should at least give an undertaking that the Government will at some time introduce legislation to alter the 1948 Act and make the same provisions apply throughout the country. He cannot say that he thinks the Instruction is fine and then vote against it—although that is what he has indicated, in effect. He has said that he supports the principle of the Bill, but he now wants the Instruction supported as well. I do not know what sort of nonsense that is.
The hon. Gentleman cannot speak for himself on this occasion. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) has said, Birmingham is already getting exactly what the Leeds people want, it is a fantastic situation. It is obvious that as the law now stands Leeds has no alternative but to promote legislation in order to achieve the same position as exists in Birmingham. Its only course is to promote this Private Bill. If the Government had told the sponsors of the Bill that they would agree to amend the 1948 Act—and, at the moment, they have given no indication of that—I have no doubt that the city council would not have bothered to introduce these Clauses, but they obviously have not been told that. We have no assurance that such amending legislation will be introduced, and we must support the Clause. If the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) has any interest in the City of Leeds he should be only too pleased to ask leave to withdraw this Instruction, which operates against principles which his own Parliamentry Secretary supports

8.57 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I intervene only for a moment or two, upon two counts. First, because I want to point out that I have been connected with the City of Leeds in my time, and, secondly, because I was concerned in the passage of the 1948 Bill through the House. One of my hon. Friends said that the Parliamentary Secretary had advised the House to vote against

the Clause. He certainly did not say so explicitly. His objections were concentrated upon subsection (2, f).
I submit that there is a good deal of common ground between all those who have spoken so far. Most of the Clause is beyond any debate. It has been suggested that subsection (2, a) will cause some difficulty—that is, the provision relating to men over 65 and women over 60—partly because it is thought to be a little wide. I have checked up on this matter and I can say that the council has in mind that it would be a practical proposition to grant to old-age pensioners passes which would entitle them to travel at the same rates as children's half fare between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., that is to say, during off-peak hours.
For all practical purposes this would also have the effect of limiting the concessions to pensioners who were not working. The Leeds City Corporation is quite willing to seek to amend the Bill in this sense, so that any concessionary fares will be granted only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. I think it will be recognised that this goes almost all the way to meet the kind of difficulties which have been put up.
The point I want to leave with the House is this: if the Instruction is carried we shall, from the point of view of hon. Members who have spoken in favour of it, prevent Leeds from doing something which they themselves would agree that Leeds ought to be able to do, as well as prevent Leeds from doing one thing which hon. Members opposite do not want it to do. I submit that there is a perfectly ordinary procedure for us to follow. When we have a Clause with which we are on the whole in agreement, surely we can leave it to the later stages of the Bill to deal with the one part of the Clause about which we disagree.
I was on the Leeds City Council with the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) and, incidentally, I was defeated in the 1930 Election, to which he refers. Knowing him as I do, may I say to him, "Cannot we be perfectly reasonable? We know the point on which we disagree and we know that we agree about all the rest. Cannot we now leave it to the further stages of the Bill, where this matter of


detail can be properly argued out?" The hon. Member would not forfeit any rights which he has. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is the procedure which we have always followed and that it would be a good thing to follow it now. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to withdraw the Instruction. He can go on with the argument, if he likes, elsewhere.

Mr. Kaberry: Was the hon. Gentleman offering to withdraw subsection (2, a)?

Mr. Edwards: No. I was giving an assurance on (2, a) and was saying that the only point between us is on (2, f), and that can be dealt with in Committee.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 130.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[9.2 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Molson, A. H. E.


Aitken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Nicholls, Harmar


Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.
Grimston Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Ashton, H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Oakshott, H. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.


Bidgood, J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pott, H. P.


Body, R. F.
Holt, A. F.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horobin, Sir Ian
Redmayne, M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bryan, P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Russell, R. S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Shepherd, William


Carr, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Channon, H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Storey, S.


Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Studholme, H. G.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, R. F.
Keegan, D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N,


Dance, J. C. G.
Lagden, G. W.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Vane, W. M. F.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Vosper, D. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Capt. A. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Wall, Major Patrick


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Freeth, D. K.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marples, A. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mathew, R.



Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wing Commander Bullus and




Mr. Hirst.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Clunie, J.


Albu, A. H.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.
Cronin, J. D.


Bartley, P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Blyton, W. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Deer, G.


Boardman, H.
Callaghan, L. J.
Delargy, H. J.




Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Finch, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mahon, Simon
Steele, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Greenwood, Anthony
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Timmons, J.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Hastings, S.
Oram, A. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hunter, A. E.
Peart, T. F.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wool, R. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Janner, B.
Probert, A. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Randall, H. E.



Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Charles Pannell and


Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William
Mr. Denis Howell.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.

9.11 p.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 276.
Briefly, Clause 276 would give the Corporation of Leeds power to sell
any articles of school uniform to pupils at any school maintained by the Corporation …
The expression "articles of school uniform" means:
(for boys) blazers caps ties and badges; and (for girls) blazers badges gymnasium tunics pinafore frocks ties and headgear.
The Clause is another example of a local authority seeking to extend its activities and, by trading from the town hall—in this case, from the Civic Hall of Leeds—to enter into unfair competition with traders. I know that there are differences of opinion on this subject—

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Why is it necessary for a Member for a Middlesex constituency to move this Motion rather than a Member from Leeds?

Wing Commander Bullus: If the hon. Member had been present in the earlier part of the debate, he would have heard much play made of the various Members who were speaking to the Bill. I claim rather more than a nodding acquaintance of the City of Leeds. I have attempted

to represent the City of Leeds for ten years, and I know something of its work. Clause 276 introduces an unnecessary and undesirable element of municipal trading which is not possessed by any other local authorities for these articles.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is it in order for an hon. Member who failed to secure representation for a city to take it out of the inhabitants of that city by seeking a refusal of the powers for which they are asking?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly in order in moving the Motion.

Wing Commander Bullus: May I correct the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee)? I represented the City of Leeds for ten years and was successful in every election I fought. On one occasion my opponents were so satisfied with my representation that I was returned unopposed.

Mr. Pargiter: Then why leave Leeds?

Wing Commander Bullus: I know that municipal trading has been practised for many years and that radio sets and furniture have been sold by municipalities, but that does not alter the principle, and it is not right that the City of Leeds should seek to extend further the powers of municipal trading.
Municipal trading is a new commercial morality that capitalises an enterprise out of the rates and then goes into competition with those who pay the rates. This is an injustice to the traders and to the ratepayers, and it is not outweighed by any possible benefit to the citizens.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House what is the attitude of the co-operative society?

Wing Commander Bullus: That is an invitation to a wider debate.
I was speaking of the injustice of the municipality's taking rates from the shopkeepers and then entering into competition with them. If the private trader suffers any losses he pays for them himself, or he goes bankrupt, but when the municipality has losses in trading they are made up from the rates to which those with whom the municipality entered into competition have to contribute large portions.
A trading borough—in this case, a county borough—often hides its losses by its methods of its accounts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—by the method of the presentation of its accounts. Sales staff are treated as council officials, with their salaries charged to the common pool.

Mr. Nabarro: It is all a fiddle.

Wing Commander Bullus: I ask those who support municipal trading what system is used to show the cost for rates, for rent, for lighting and for heat. They are not shown separately. They are included in the ordinary accounts of the council, and, therefore, there is no comparison.
Indeed, from a local brief supplied, I understand, by the town clerk of Leeds, which has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), we can learn something of this. There is evidence here of a deliberate attempt to undercut Leeds traders. I quote from the town clerk's brief:
It is a little difficult to be precise about actual prices but as a general principle tradesmen appear to add to the cost of goods to them 50 per centum to cover overheads, whilst the Corporation are of the opinion that a service could be given allowing only approximately 15 per centum for overheads. On such items as caps and badges the saving will, of course, be small except for the availability of badges, but on items such as blazers the saving could be considerable.

He sets out some figures of retail prices and the costs to the retailer, and he adds:
The advantages of sales with only 15 per cent. or even 20 per cent. to the above cost prices is readily seen.
Wages, rates and rent are conveniently ignored.

Mr. Pargiter: On a point of order. Is not this a misleading account of the facts of the situation, and are not these unfair and unjustifiable comments on the accounts of a city corporation? Are they not wrong and thoroughly misleading?

Mr. Speaker: In so far as it is a dispute about the methods of accounting of the corporation, that is a matter of debate. It is not a matter of order at all.

Wing Commander Bullus: The Socialist leader of Leeds City Council has said,
Sales will be subject to the fixing of charges sufficient to meet the expense of providing such articles.
Does this really mean that wages, rents and heating and lighting will all be charged up and that the extra cost will be only from 15 to 20 per cent.?

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. and gallant Member see anything immoral in the parents of school children—and I am one—getting these uniforms a little cheaper?

Wing Commander Bullus: I am expressing a personal opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that there are other opinions on municipal trading, but I have always thought that it is immoral to take rates from shopkeepers and then have the municipality enter into unfair competition with them. It has been averred that the Leeds shopkeepers will not sell the badges separately. This is quite false. They will sell blazer badges separately, but when sold separately the badges are subject to Purchase Tax. The tax is waived if the badges are on the garments. There is talk about a monopoly of the sale of these blazers, but many of the schools choose their own shopkeeper and are tied to him for years. This practice has led to the confused idea in the minds of many Socialists that this is a monopoly, when it is not.
It has been estimated that in more than 200 schools administered by the Leeds authority about 5,000 garments would be required every year. It is estimated that the average cost of each


garment would be £3. That means that in the event of the corporation setting up its own trading bureau the shopkeepers of Leeds would lose an average of £15,000 a year on this item. I maintain that this will be a great hardship to Leeds shopkeepers.

Mr. Mellish: What about the parents? Why does the hon. and gallant Member not say something about them?

Wing Commander Bullus: A few years ago it was estimated that in a representative borough in London the shopkeepers provided 25 per cent. of the rates. I suggest that as a result of the recent reassessments, shopkeepers will now pay nearly half the rates of the municipal authorities and in the great county borough of Leeds, which within a radius of 30 miles has a purchasing population of about 13 million, Leeds shopkeepers will be paying nearly half the rates. It is iniquitous that a local authority should take rates from the shopkeepers and then set up in competition with them. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: On a point of order. Are we not entitled to have this place as a debating Chamber instead of a rabble rousing arena?

Mr. Speaker: I think that there has been a little too much noise recently, but I hope that the hon. Member will leave it to me to intervene when I feel obliged to do so.

Mr. Pargiter: Further to that point of order. Must one listen in silence to all these malign statements about the corporation?

Mr. Speaker: All these are matters of debate, and it is the duty of hon. Members to listen to what is being said by other hon. Members and then, if they have the opportunity, to answer them.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point or order, and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, does not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) impinge upon the rule about reading speeches?

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe that the hon. and gallant Member was reading his speech.

Wing Commander Bullus: Sir, I have been expressing my own opinion, which I believe is shared by most of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. From the many interruptions I realise that what I have said has not been popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that does not deter me in a matter of principle.
I recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite have their own opinions. I endeavour to respect them, and I always listen to their arguments. I rarely interrupt their speeches, and I do not think it is too much to ask that hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen to my arguments when I move on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself that it be an Instruction to the Committee to delete this Clause. I repeat that I think municipal trading is iniquitous, and I hope that the House will reject this Clause.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: beg to second the Motion.
The citizens of Leeds can be well assured that their Bill is being debated with sincerity, passion and gusto. I feel that I ought to prove my native and local surroundings by making this speech in broad Yorkshire. I intervene in the debate only as a friendly neighbour of the great City of Leeds—

Mr. Hobson: Bradford used not to be.

Mr. Tiley: It is in these days. Leeds is near Bradford, and I have always thought that Leeds was a nice place to come from. Has the hon. Gentleman something to say?

Mr. Hobson: Bradford goes there to shop.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. There is far too much interruption in this debate. I ask hon. Members to listen to the speeches that are made on each side of the House.

Mr. Tiley: As a Bradfordian, I envy many of the things possessed by Leeds. It has a famous university, it has a fine sports ground, it has a Customs and Excise office which we think should belong to Bradford. It also has our Lord Mayor's chain of office, which was removed from the Lord Mayor's car on one occasion when he was visiting Leeds. I can think of no reason why facilities for


turning Leeds Corporation into a children's outfitters should be approved by this House.
There are eight shops in that great city which supply school uniforms and they are among the best shops there, performing an excellent service. There is no monopoly about it. The only regulations about the supply of uniforms are those prescribed by the schools themselves.
Furthermore, we are dealing with a commodity which it is not easy to handle. A short time ago we disposed of the question of ice, and now we are asked to extend the facilities for municipal trading into the difficult market of children's clothes. The very fact of different sizes will create difficulties. Special staff will be needed. There will be a need for storage premises. Neither we on this side of the House nor our opponents on the opposite side have yet found a way in which the public can be protected from losses in stock; and this is a commodity which is easily damaged.
There is another factor to consider. When one is buying textiles one must have an understanding of cloth and dyeing, and only specialists have it. More important than that, if one is to give the consumer the benefit of a reasonable market price, one must know when to buy the commodities.

Mr. Pargiter: In any case, Leeds City Council already has a central purchasing department which has experts dealing with the matter.

Mr. Tiley: I understand that in no part of the country does there exist an organisation attached to a municipal authority which understands the service which is necessary. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it does not disturb me. This is a job which requires understanding and ability. One has to provide alteration hands, for example. Furthermore, one of the big difficulties in supplying goods of this type is that the trade is not an everyday one, but is purely seasonal. One finds that one needs a huge staff at one time of the year and then for the rest of the year it has nothing to do. With their greater turnover and their experience and cleverness, the shops have solved the problem.
I come now to the most important point. It is not a party point. It concerns

the well-being of our nation. [Interruption.] I hope that when I have mentioned this point hon. Members opposite will treat the matter seriously and not regard the debate, to the discredit of the great City of Leeds, as a rabble-rouser.
Ever since I came into this House in June, we have been told about the shortage of people employed in production and of the technological students and teachers. The country urgently needs people to enter our new schools and colleges to further our scientific knowledge and enable us to produce more. Yet the House is considering a Measure which will mean more of the distributive class of employee. We are well served by our shopkeepers; in history we have been known as a nation of shopkeepers. Why should we, then, at this moment of all moments encourage our young people not to go into the technological institutions and colleges, not to train as scientists, not to train for dentistry, not to produce the cloth which the distributive people will sell, but rather to increase the numbers engaged in distribution? We are over-well served in the matter of distribution.
In view of that thought, and the need which has so many times been expressed on both sides of the House, I hope hon. Members opposite will realise that their vote may turn young people away from producing goods and towards distribution, a service already well established in this country and particularly in Leeds. I hope that the opponents of the Motion will not find it necessary to divide the House.

9.34 p.m.

Miss Bacon: The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) said that he was a member of Leeds City Council some years ago. He does not now represent the City of Leeds either in the House or on the Leeds City Council. Consequently, I was rather surprised to find that he had in his possession the brief supplied by the town clerk to hon. Members representing Leeds.

Mr. Nabarro: We have all got the document.

Miss Bacon: The hon. Member has already shown tonight that he does not know the first thing about Leeds if he did, he would not talk in that way.
We on this side of the House approve of school uniforms. I believe that it looks much better for all the boys and the girls in a school to be dressed in school uniform. The idea behind providing school uniforms has always been not only that the school children in their uniforms would look better, but that they would all look alike and there would be no distinction between children of richer or poorer parents. The idea was that there would be available a cheap kind of uniform which everybody could afford to buy. However, what was originally envisaged as a cheaper kind of clothing has become the most expensive type of clothing for children which we have in this country.
Some years ago children who went to our grammar schools were, in the main, children whose parents could afford the fees. The abolition of fees in maintained secondary schools has meant that a larger number of children of poorer parents are now attending our grammar schools. Further, in the secondary modern schools more children are now being asked to buy school uniforms.
We often hear it said by hon. Members opposite that we should have parity of esteem between secondary grammar schools and secondary modern schools; and there are many head teachers who are trying to bring that state of affairs about. One of the first things they do is to institute the wearing of school uniform in order that the children in the secondary modern schools should have a uniform in the same way as those in secondary grammar schools. But it does mean that many parents are being called upon to buy these uniforms.
Our main case on this Clause is this—and it applies not only to the City of Leeds as all hon. Members opposite who are parents will surely realise—that at present there is a monopoly in a few shops in each city which supply these school clothes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the provision of school uniforms in many places has become quite a racket.

Mr. Farey-Jones: is the hon. Lady not aware that the Co-operative societies do an enormous trade in school blazers?

Miss Bacon: I am coming to that in a moment or two, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. In Leeds, the secondary grammar schools are supplied by only four or five shops.
Mention has been made of the Cooperative societies. I would like to tell the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that, unfortunately—we have to admit this—in Leeds the Co-op is run by the Conservative Party. The President of the Leeds Co-op is a Conservative Party agent.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her correction. In those circumstances, would she not consider that it is an extraordinary reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman sitting in front of her, the Member who sits for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), the Leader of the Opposition, that he cannot even put the Co-ops in Leeds in his pocket?

Miss Bacon: I wish to pursue the question that we are discussing.
I understand that the Leeds Co-op., which is run by the Tories in Leeds, tried some time ago to enter into this business. They tried to get badges so that they could sell uniforms for the secondary grammar schools, but they were told that they could not sell the badges because they were copyright. I do not know what was meant by that, but they could not enter this business because they could not get the badges. We say that that kind of ring, involving the school, the manufacturers and the traders, is wrong.
I know that in some shops in Leeds it is possible to buy badges, but in others it is not and there has been considerable difficulty in the past when parents have tried to buy cheaper kinds of blazers, or tried to make their own—in Leeds there are many parents who are tailors and able to make school uniforms—they have had difficulty in obtaining badges. It is recognised in many places that this kind of racket and monopoly ought to be stopped.
The Daily Mirror on 29th November, 1955, devoted the whole of its leader to this problem. It said:
It's a great day for the whole family when the youngster gets his first school uniform.
There is only one snag. The cost of rigging him out with the regulation togs.
Often parents can buy the clothes only at one or two 'pricey' shops which have a monopoly in uniforms for a particular school 


It goes on:
Now the National Chamber of Trade, representing 500,000 shopkeepers, reports that town councils may muscle in on this clothing business. It opposes a plan by Leeds Corporation to sell school uniforms to children.
'The proper place for parents to buy school uniforms is in the shops,' it says.
It goes on:
But if uniforms must be sold in shops, let the Chamber of Trade see that they are sold in all the shops and not just in selected ones.
It ends by saying:
Here is a trade practice which the National Chamber of Trade ought to condemn right away.
The British Standards Institution month by month issues a consumer report and it is rather a coincidence that for March. 1956, the report deals with this topic.
This is not a political journal, and is not even a newspaper which sympathises with this side of the House. The British Standards Institution is lauded by the Front Bench opposite. It devotes the whole of its front page to this matter of school uniforms. In an article headed:
School Uniforms—Information Wanted.
it says:
There has never been a time when mothers did not despair about the ravages that healthy children make on their clothing; but when these ravages occur to a compulsory school uniform, sometimes costing more than the family would otherwise have spent, women feel they have legitimate grouse.
It goes on to say:
Our correspondents complain that blazers do not stand up to reasonably hard wear; some mothers say that they have to be replaced almost every term because, as the nap wears off, greyish threads show through and the blazer looks shabby; and they would like to see elbows reinforced. One mother points out that she bought a blazer of quality similar to the regulation one for 30s. less than the school outfitter was charging and herself sewed on the school badge.
Even this consumer report shows that parents are realising that a great deal is wrong.
I have here in my hand a price list of one of these suppliers in Leeds. It is a supplier for Allerton High School, and, significantly, it is headed:
Allerton High School.
Price List for Outfit Supplied by Rawcliffes
Ltd.

Mr. Bidgood: May I tell the hon. Lady that the name of the school is pronounced as though it began with the

letters "A1", and not as though it began with "O1"?

Miss Bacon: I refer to it as Allerton, that is to say, as though it began with an "O."
Underneath that heading appear the words:
Official Outfitters To The School.
Parents must, therefore, go to this shop to get school outfits. Now look at the cost—

Mr. Kaberry: To be official suppliers, presumably, they have been nominated by the headmaster or the headmistress of the school.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Miss Bacon: Here are some figures. A pinafore dress of the smallest size costs 54s., and the larger size 76s. 6d. Blouses range from 18s. 6d. to 25s. 6d., and "gym" tunics from 45s. to 56s, Blazers, No. 1 quality, cost 46s. 6d. for the small size or 66s. for the largest size. while the No. 2 quality cost from 64s. 6d. to 85s.
I will not go on reading these figures out, but will only say that we have been doing some arithmetic. We find that to fit out a girl from this school at this shop—and the other shops are no cheaper—it would cost her parents from £25 to £30. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] This is not exceptional, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, or at least their wives, if they were honest, would be able to reinforce what I am saying, because this goes on all over the country. I have had letters from parents, and there have been many cases in Leeds and elsewhere of children having to refuse scholarships because their parents have not been able to afford to fit them out.
Some hon. Members opposite may say that the council has powers to provide free clothing, but these powers were stopped altogether for some time, and now the Ministry will only allow the council to provide the very minimum. Leeds City Council can provide for a boy a maximum of only 10s., and for a girl a maximum of £5.
What do we propose in this Clause'? The Leeds City Council proposes that it should supply from its central purchasing department certain items of clothing, and let me say here that the council's


central purchasing department is already in existence. The council will not have to set up another department, because it is already there and engaged on important work, such as the provision of the physical training clothing which is supplied to some schools. Neither is there to be any loss year by year.
I think that the hon. Gentleman opposite was really being very unfair to a city like Leeds and its officials in suggesting that they would be hiding the losses. I am assured that all the overhead expenses would be taken into account. That assurance has been given, and if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary he ought to produce it.

Wing Commander Bullus: I accept that from the hon. Lady about Leeds. I was speaking of municipal trading generally.

Miss Bacon: I am talking at the moment about the powers which the Leeds City Council is asking for; this is a Bill relating only to Leeds, and that is what we shall be voting on tonight.
I would emphasise that we are not proposing that the Leeds City Council should have a monopoly in supplying these clothes. We shall still have traders to supply the clothes. Tories opposite are supposed to believe in free competition, but, in this case, they want to have a monopoly. If the Leeds City Council fails in this project and cannot provide the clothing as cheaply as the traders, well, then, they will stop doing it, because in that case no parents would go to the central purchasing department. If, on the other hand, the Leeds City Council is successful and manages to provide these articles of clothing much cheaper, I am sure that parents in Leeds will feel very grateful to the council.
Mention has been made of a town meeting. It was held in December, and at that meeting 254 voted for this Clause and only 68 voted against it. Had there been a referendum on the subject, I believe that there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour. Not only parents in Leeds, but parents all over the country would be grateful for anything which could be done to cheapen this clothing and break the monopoly.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I believe that certain important aspects regarding this proposal have not been put before the House. Hon. Members opposite may be right in believing that it would provide cheaper clothing for school children. But if they will look at the matter more closely, they will realise there is not much substance in that belief. The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and other hon. Members have said that the profit imposed by local shopkeepers amounts to 50 per cent. of the cost. They think that the local authority will be able to reduce prices to the consumers. I wish to call the attention of the House to the Clause which states:
Provided that the Corporation shall make such charges for articles of school uniform sold by them under this section as will taking one year with another produce a revenue sufficient to meet the expenses of obtaining and supplying such articles
It goes on to state, and this is very important:
The expression'articles of school uniform' means…(for boys) blazers, caps, ties and badges; and … (for girls) blazers, badges, gymnasium tunics, pinafore frocks, ties and head gear.
So the Corporation will be closely confined regarding the articles it may sell.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that already there is a central purchasing authority which has been purchasing gym slips. But this is a highly technical trade, and I can assure hon. Members that if school uniforms of the right quality and type are to be purchased, the buying must be done by some highly qualified person. There is here no mention of a selling staff. A highly qualified selling staff will be required. Good stocks and shops will also be required. Surely hon. Members will agree that in many cases it would be a considerable inconvenience and hardship for parents to have to go from one side of the city to the other.
There is no question of hon. Members opposite asking for a monopoly for the corporation. They ask that the corporation should compete with other shops. The question I wish to ask—it has not been posed by the corporation—is what is the total turnover of school uniforms per annum in Leeds? That is an important point to consider in deciding the size


of the organisation and in assessing prices and profits. Let us assume—I think we may rightly do so—that the corporation would get only a proportion of the available trade. Incidentally, it seems rather odd, having lost to the Conservatives the votes of the "Co-op," that the Leeds Corporation should endeavour to usurp trade within the municipality, but that is an aside.
Anyone who is or has been engaged in the distributive trades knows that considerable costs are involved in such trading, and that where on-costing is restricted, in the case of a very closely proscribed commodity, the cost of the overheads in connection with that commodity will be much higher than they would be in the case of a general store dealing with a considerable variety of goods.
Mention has been made of the fact that certain stores carry certain school uniforms, and that those stores are recommended to parents by those schools. The schools recommend the stores because, ordinarily, dealing in such a proscribed set of articles is just not a trading proposition, and it would not be possible for a number of shops to deal with the same school uniform. They cannot carry a sufficient stock to give a sufficient range of sizes, nor can they provide the attention or the qualities which are necessary. I therefore suggest that hon. Members opposite should consider this matter very carefully, if they have the interests of the Leeds corporation at heart. The corporation has asked for the Clause without really appreciating the arguments which are involved in its application.

9.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Perhaps I may intervene now very briefly in order to give the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on the educational aspect of the Clause. I do not intend to deal with the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members against municipal trading, except to say that I give them my general support. I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—who has great knowledge of these matters, and who, I thought, was listened to with great interest by hon. Members opposite—put the case extremely well.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has said, many schools, especially secondary schools, like their pupils to wear some distinctive uniform, and, in order that that should not impose hardship upon those pupils or their parents, local authorities are permitted, under Section 81 of the Education Act, 1944, to assist with the cost of a school uniform, upon an income basis. In accordance with the regulations made under that section local authorities can pay the whole or part of the cost.
I have noted the hon. Lady's point that the Leeds Corporation has been restricted under this scheme, and I will have that point looked into, but this Clause seeks to go much further, and to cover not only those children or parents who would otherwise suffer hardship, but all children in maintained and direct-grant schools. The hon. Lady will know as well as I do that Section 7 of the 1944 Act—which imposes upon authorities the duty of contributing to the
spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education … shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area "—
certainly does not cover, and was never intended to cover, participation in trade as envisaged by this Clause.

Miss Bacon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary make one point clear? I understand that the provision of school uniform upon a means test basis is governed by Circular No. 210, Addendum No. 1, and that this circular stated that the Minister would allow the expense of providing distinctive clothing for pupils, provided that, in the case of boys, it should be limited to the provision of a cap and badge and, in the case of girls, to the minimum extent considered essential. In the case of Leeds, the authority can provide only 10s. in respect of a cap and badge for a boy, and £5 for a girl—which is totally inadequate.

Mr. Vosper: In fact, the position is governed by Statutory Instrument No. 666, of 1st April, 1945, which is still current, which goes much wider, and covers all items of school uniform.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: But is it not true that the Ministry of Education has sent out this circular which limits local authorities?

Mr. Vosper: I said that I would have that particular aspect investigated, but I went on to say that this Clause goes far beyond children whose parents are suffering hardship and seeks to cover all children of maintained or direct grant schools.
Anyone who has first-hand knowledge of local authorities must be aware of the problems with which they are confronted at the moment to implement the 1944 Act, and it does not seem to me sense that they should dissipate their energies further by taking on extraneous jobs of this kind. As it is, complaint is often made that there are already too many ancillary services which impose a burden on those whose real task it is to advance the cause of education. I wonder whether this is the time to add to this burden.
Last year I had the good fortune to visit the city of Leeds, where I visited schools and where I was generously entertained by the education committee. On that occasion I was able to compliment the Leeds authority on the work it had done, but I do not think I should be abusing its hospitality if I added that I was fully aware of the immense problems it still has to tackle and in which it wished for my right hon. Friend's support.
I sincerely find it hard to believe that those directly concerned with education in the city wish to enlarge their sphere of activities. I did not hear on the occasion of my visit, and have not heard tonight, sufficient evidence to suggest that there are special local reasons why the city of Leeds should have this power. No other authority in England or Wales has it and, according to my information, no other authority has ever sought it.
My right hon. Friend is not convinced of the need for a general provision of this nature, nor, in his opinion, has a case been made out for exceptional treatment of Leeds. School uniforms for those who desire them are to be welcomed, and there are plenty of people skilled in their trade who are willing or able to supply them, particularly, I should have thought, in the city of Leeds. There is provision in the Act to prevent hardship for those who would otherwise suffer.
In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend shares the views of my hon. Friends about municipal trading and its effect on the educational system and

advises the House to reject the Clause and support the Instruction.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) tried to persuade us that it would be impossible for the Leeds City Council to sell school uniforms at a price lower than that now prevailing in the city, and he developed at great length the difficulties which beset any council which undertakes a venture of this kind. Surely if the Leeds Council is unable to sell these goods at prices which compete with local traders, we have nothing to worry about in the operation of the Clause; the council will simply find that it does not pay it to use the power. It is interesting to notice that whereas the hon. Member for Gillingham was anxious to show that Leeds could not sell competitively with private traders, the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), who moved the Instruction, was obviously worried by the realisation that it would be able to do so.
It surely is inconceivable that in a city like Leeds the city council has not fully acquainted itself with the technicalities of the clothing trade. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Gillingham. If there is one city in the country which can say to the House, "We know what we are talking about when we ask for powers of this kind," it is the city of Leeds.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Why?

Mr. Stewart: Because, although the right hon. Lady is apparently unaware of it, Leeds is noted for the clothing trade; many people there understand it and the city councli can without difficulty acquire the necessary knowledge.
This is the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary when he suggested that we should not give the power to Leeds because nobody else has it. That is an objection to putting anything new in any Private Bill. One of the functions of Private Bill legislation is to allow a certain amount of experiment in the degree of powers which local authorities can exercise. That is part of the merits of our system of local government.
In Leeds there are two facts which urge us to realise that it can claim exceptional treatment. One is the fact


which I have already mentioned, that Leeds City Council is probably in a bettor position than any other city council in the country to know how to handle this business competently.
Secondly, Leeds is suffering, with what I believe is exceptional severity, from the general problem of the high prices of school uniforms. When we get those two facts together, a city where school uniforms are at present exceptionally dear and a city council which would be in an exceptionally strong position to be able to develop an efficient service itself, surely that is a case in which we should grant the power, or at the very least say that this House will not, without further consideration, refuse the power altogether.
Let us remember what we are doing. We are not making a final decision on the matter now. If the Instruction is rejected, the matter can still be gone into in great detail and with evidence brought to the Committee when it is considering the Bill. I suggest that, in view of the arguments in favour of Leeds having this power, it is not reasonable for us immediately to shut the door and to say that we will not allow the Committee even to hear evidence on and consider this point.
The points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite no doubt on a suitable occasion could be supported by evidence, just as my hon. Friends on this side of the House could support their views. Let us give them both the chance and not shut the door on them by leaving out—on the ground of doctrinaire principles without any regard for the special needs of this city—a reasonable request from the city council to wield these powers
I have always had a special interest in school uniforms because when I was eleven years of age I had the good fortune to win a scholarship to a school which provided the whole uniform free as part of the scholarship. I remember very well the anxieties of parents of some of my contemporaries who had not been similarly lucky. Since that date the problem has become more and more acute. We all heard the price list read by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). It could not possibly be maintained that the city council could not give its citizens a better bargain than was provided by those fantastic figures.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North who moved this Instruction, tried to argue that if this power were given and exercised it would injure the ratepayers of Leeds, but the few firms which at present supply this clothing at shocking prices are not the whole body of Leeds ratepayers. There are citizens of Leeds who buy school uniforms, parents of the children. If it is a question of weighing up good and evil among the citizens of Leeds, surely that is a matter on which we could trust the good sense of the City of Leeds.

Wing Commander Bullus: Who would pay the losses if the Corporation could not make a success of this venture?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member paid sufficient attention to the very interesting speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who pointed out that there could not be any loss. I would advise the hon. and gallant Member to study that speech. There is no substance in the point made by the hon. and gallant Member, as has been pointed out from his side of the House.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, whose concern for education we all know, chose to speak tonight rather as a partisan than as an education officer. I do not think any of us dispute the importance of school uniforms, or the fact that the cost of keeping children at school has been steadily rising which is of very great interest to parents. We all want parents to keep their children at school as long as possible. In a debate a little while ago, I pointed out the growing cost of all the things that education authorities have to buy and the general problem of the rising cost of education. Here we have an opportunity in a particular city to afford some alleviation of that cost. It is not sufficient for the hon. and gallant Member to say that, in cases of hardship, help can be given. That help would be given from public money, and we do not want public money to be used to pay unnecessarily high prices. Whether a parent is sufficiently well off to be able to pay or is a poorer parent who needs help, it remains a waste and an abuse that money should be spent on these high prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) tells me that some


of the members of the Leeds City Council are being obliged gravely to consider whether, if something cannot be done about this abuse of high prices for school uniforms, they will not have to reach the unhappy conclusion that they must no longer promote the wearing of school uniforms. Before we vote tonight, we should remember that none of the hon. Members who oppose the Clause has suggested any remedy for this abuse of high prices in Leeds. In the absence of a remedy, we face the risk that if we do not give this power to the Leeds Council we may—I put it no higher—be bringing to an end the wearing of school uniforms in Leeds schools. I cannot believe that any hon. Member who is really concerned for the education of the children would want to do that. I ask hon. Members, therefore, very carefully to consider before they vote against the Clause.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I was disturbed when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) bring forward what I believe is a legitimate argument to our discussion tonight. I would be very sorry if school uniforms were put beyond the reach of children in schools, for uniform helps to create the right atmosphere in a school and to maintain the loyalty to the school when a youngster is wearing it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It helps tradition."] It helps tradition. The uniform, the old school tie—[Interruption.] I am not accusing any hon. Member opposite of having his old school tie from the city council. What I am suggesting is that the old school tie is as important to our secondary schools as to our public schools; it means as much. It expresses loyalties to institutions to which we have all belonged, and it is nothing to be decried.
The 1944 Education Act made clear the will of this House and, I believe, of the nation that all money tests should be removed from secondary education. School uniform, with its present high cost, through monopoly privilege being granted, is an affront to the principle of the 1944 Act.
Four categories of people are affected by the proposition that we are considering. There are the teachers, who have a lively interest in the question of school

uniforms. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that extra and extraneous duties would be added to those suffered by the teachers of Leeds if the Instruction were not agreed to. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has informed me that Leeds City Council has made perfectly clear that no additional duty will be placed upon the teachers of that city if this Instruction be withdrawn or defeated, and that no teacher in Leeds need feel anxious that he will have more work to do because of the local authority's supplying the uniforms.
Then there are the parents, ratepayers and shopkeepers. I think all of us are concerned that the shopkeepers shall have a fair deal in the community. Shopkeepers have an honourable part in the life of these islands. We on this side of the House are not hostile to shopkeepers, but we have a right to say that the interests of the greater number must have priority over the interests of the smaller number. When the question is merely that of the right of the shopkeepers to sell goods at a higher price because they are faced with the competition of the local authorities, then it is the public interest which must have priority. After all, the majority interest in this case quite clearly lies with the parents of the city of Leeds.
I hope that the educational interests involved will not be misled by the Parliamentary Secretary's brief statement on behalf of the Ministry tonight. He knows that anything that can help to increase the provision of uniforms for schools which have school badges, school ties and school caps is welcome. If a school has a uniform it is an additional advantage to the school if the majority of the girls wear the school dress and the majority of the boys wear the school blazer and tie. We ought to remember the embarrassment of the kiddy who cannot get the uniform when the others who are better off are able to get it. If anything is likely to create an inferiority complex it is that he has to go without. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the local authorities have the duty to provide these uniforms.

Mr. C. Pannell: After the Parliamentary Secretary spoke I consulted an authority as prominent as he is on the matter, and I am informed that he rather misled the House. He was right when


he said that the matter was governed by regulations, but the Minister by a general circular has limited the amount that should be spent. That is the position. The Parliamentary Secretary failed to draw a distinction between this and the provision of necessitous clothing, which is an obligation. He was less than frank with the House.

Mr. Vosper: rose—

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer when I have finished my speech. I shall not be long.
Undoubtedly there are people who are outside the scale of the local authority provision of free blazers and ties. They are those thriving, thrifty families who are making sacrifices for their children and who would be hit by denial of the right to the local authority to go ahead with this scheme. The House would be mean if it put the interests of the shopkeepers before the interests of the children and the schools on this issue.

10.20 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) retrieved himself in the last few sentences of his speech. I am very fond of him, but I was going to disagree with the basis of his argument in favour of school uniforms. I do not agree that school uniforms should be worn merely to create a tradition in the school. A good head teacher and staff, with the co-operation of the parents, can create tradition in a school even without a school tie, but I agree that school uniform is a good thing.
Unlike my hon. Friend, I was unfortunate in that when I won a scholarship to a grammar school the wearing of the full uniform was not compulsory. Whilst I wore the school gym tunic, I did not have to wear the school blazer or coat. Therefore, everybody in those days could almost in every case pick out the scholarship child as distinct from the child who came from a wealthy home. The provision of school uniform means that every child goes to school in exactly similar clothes and nobody can pick out the child of wealthy parents as against a child from a working-class home.
It is ironical that hon. Members opposite object to bulk purchasing or selling by a local authority, yet the Government do just that for the Forces, even though they have apparently made several mistakes lately, either by selling stuff which they ought not to have bought or selling stuff which they ought not to have sold. Let hon. Members opposite apply the argument applied to the Forces to children from working-class homes.
We have to bear in mind the heavy burden which expensive school clothes represent nowadays. The Government have made the burden much heavier during the last year, because the last Budget led to an increase in the price of children's clothes for those parents who have to buy them. What has been happening in many parts of the country is that the head teachers of some of these grammar schools nominate a particular shop—not shops—and do their best to compel the children who go to their schools to buy their clothes only from that shop.
The very people opposite who object to a monopoly and object to this Clause, because they think that it will create a monopoly, are the very people who have condoned monopolies during the greater part of last year. In addition, in some cities there has been a great deal of objection from heads of schools when local authorities have tried to show that more than one shop should be able to sell school uniforms. My local authority has stated through the governors of the schools concerned that Co-operative societies and other traders can sell school uniforms, and in that way parents can choose which shops they will patronise.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite take every opportunity to taunt us about the Cooperative societies' share in these matters. They say that because parents who buy clothes for their children from Co-operative societies have had a dividend on them, they are able to buy school uniforms at a lesser price than that at which private enterprise can sell them.
I am surprised that the Bill does not specify that school uniforms shall be bought only from the local authority. It will be possible in Leeds, therefore, for even a Tory-controlled Co-operative society to sell school uniforms if it so wishes. It is important that we should make it clear that the local authority is


not trying to exclude either the private traders, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned to protect, or the Cooperative societies which, frankly, I wish to protect in this instance.
Concern was expressed by one hon. Gentleman opposite that an expert would be needed to decide whether the quality of the school uniform was sufficiently good. I suggest that a head teacher or a governess can make that decision, and parents are fairly good judges of whether they are receiving good quality for the amount charged.
I hope that we shall agree to this Clause because, if we do, we shall be

helping parents who are hard pressed by the expense of sending their children to grammar schools or to modern secondary schools where a school uniform is worn. What Leeds Corporation seeks to do in this Clause will mean that parents will no longer be held up at the pistol point by the existing monopolies. Parents will know that they can buy school uniforms for their children without excessive profits being made at their expense. I hope, therefore, that we shall support the Leeds Corporation in this way.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 124.

Division No. 127.]
AYES
[10.29 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nicholls, Harmar


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Green, A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Ashton, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, c. J.
Pott, H. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornmsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Body, R. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Ramsden, J. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bryan, P.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Joseph, Sir Keith
Storey, S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, D.
Studholme, H. G.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Keegan, D.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Crouch, R. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lagden, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.

Touche, Sir Gordon


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Vosper, D. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wall, Major Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Freeth, D. K.
Marples, A. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.



Gibson-Watt, D.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, J. B.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wing Commander Bullus and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Mr. Hirst.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Albu, A. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bartley, P.
Hoy, J. H.
Probert, A. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Or. A. D. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, G. M,
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Thornton, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mclnnes, J.
Timmons. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mahon, S.
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Finch, H. J.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Willey, Frederick


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Willie, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Winterbottom, Richard


Grey C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Miss Alice Bacon and


Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Charles Pannell.

10.38 p.m.

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 153.
This is a most extraordinary Clause. It takes powers which have never previously been included in any legislation. It provides that no calf less than seven days old shall be taken into any slaughterhouse in the City of Leeds to be slaughtered. There seems to be no clear reason or purpose for this power. The farmers do not understand it, the butchers do not understand it, the veterinary surgeons whom I have consulted see no reason for it, nor do the doctors, and the R.S.P.C.A. does not support it.
If calves have to be kept for seven days before they can be slaughtered in the City of Leeds, there will be a great burden on local farmers—and here I must declare my interest. if the calves slaughtered in the City of Leeds last year had been kept until they were seven days old, no less than 12,000 gallons of milk for human consumption would have gone to them.
This Clause is quite unenforceable, because no one can accurately decide the age of a calf until it is three or four weeks old. The provisions of the Clause would cause great cruelty. Farmers would have to keep calves in unsuitable surroundings until they were seven days old, and it would not be possible to slaughter calves injured at birth.
I am told by veterinary surgeons that there is no disadvantage about meat that is two or three days old compared with meat that is seven days old. They were of opinion that the two or three-day old meat was better. I see no reason why the Leeds Corporation should seek to include this Clause in the Bill. It is said that if we are to have a sound economy, we must have a good relationship between the people living in the cities and those in the countryside. This Clause gives no advantage to the City of Leeds and at the same time angers every farmer in the surrounding countryside.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I beg to second the Motion.
This is a very simple issue, and most of the arguments have been advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott). This Clause would appear to be unsuitable for inclusion in a Private Bill. If it is a bad thing that a calf should die in Leeds within the first week of its life, it is equally bad that it should die during that time in any other part of the country. As this is a Bill for Leeds, the effects of the Bill should be felt only in Leeds, but the effect of the provisions contained in this Clause would be felt by farmers for thirty miles round Leeds.
I have no information about the arguments which may be advanced in favour of the retention of this Clause. But if it is introduced on account of cruelty, I support what my hon. and gallant Friend has argued in that connection. If a farmer cannot get rid of a calf within the first seven days of its life, he will send it to market, which in my opinion is a less humane way of dealing with the animal. The only other argument would seem to be whether or not a younger calf is better food for human consumption. Section 9 of the Food and Drugs Act provides the necessary powers—

Mr. Charles Howell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of prosecutions for cruelty in the Leeds area?

Mr. Bryan: That may or may not be the case, but I have been to many markets in Yorkshire and elsewhere and have seen calves at least a week old in those markets, and they appeared to me to be having a miserable time. Were this Clause accepted, I believe that there would be a greater number of calves less than a week old in the markets of Yorkshire, and that would be a bad thing. The Clause is impracticable and would cause a great deal of waste and cruelty.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I wish to begin by explaining the existing situation in Leeds which has given rise to this Clause. At the height of the season between 1,200 and 1,500 calves arrive each week at the Leeds Corporation abattoir. It is not always possible for them to be slaughtered immediately on arrival. If they arrive in the late

afternoon, as is frequently the case, they have to wait until the following morning before being slaughtered. During that time they are kept in a lairage adjoining the abattoir. Once they are at the market the responsibility is in the hands of the wholesale butchers.
I would readily admit that the purchasers, the butchers, do employ people who do their best to look after these animals, but it is a fact, I am assured, that it is an almost daily occurrence to find these calves dead and dying in their lairages. Calves from a few hours to one or two days old have also arrived at the abattoir in a thoroughly distressed condition, and in those circumstances they are extremely difficult to feed and water. They are in any case difficult to feed at that age, and this difficulty is increased if they are in a pretty bad state.
These figures may impress the House. During the last quarter of 1954—and I am speaking of this Leeds abattoir only—43 calves were found to be dead or dying either upon arrival at the abattoir or in the lairages. That is a shocking state of affairs, in my opinion, and I think that if we can do anything to improve the situation we ought to do it.
The period during which the calves sometimes wait to be slaughtered is as long as eighteen hours, and that after they have made journeys as far away as Carlisle. This is, of course, not a problem which is wholly confined to Leeds. Indeed, I understand that there has been very much concern in the minds of the R.S.P.C.A. about the whole traffic in calves which takes place, and the newspaper to which reference was made a short time ago had a very vivid and horrifying story about the situation in the country generally. But we are here concerned with the Leeds Corporation Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddard-Scott) suggested that it does not make any difference if they are going to be killed anyhow, and that they might as well be killed when they are only twenty-four hours old as when they are a week old. But what the Leeds Corporation is concerned with is that when these calves are very young. or newly born, they cannot survive these journeys properly and that they cannot be slaughtered immediately. Therefore, we have this very horrifying position. It is their argument—which seems to me to be perfectly sound—that if these calves


were sent to market when at least a week old, they would be in a far better position to stand up to the journey and we would not have this horrifying picture which I have just described. That is undoubtedly the main reason for the Clause.
We have had a number of debates this evening, and in the main the speeches have followed party lines. I make no complaint about that. There are differences between the parties on these other issues. But I would ask hon. Members not to treat this question of cruelty to animals as a party issue. I hope that we shall give proper attention to the arguments for and against and make up our minds as we think fit.
There is a second reason for the Clause, and that is that the Leeds Corporation is advised—and I will give the reasons in a moment—that the meat of a day old calf is neither nutritionally nor hygienically as good as that of a calf at least seven days old. I could quote a number of ways in which the meat is said to be very unsatisfactory. There is a high water content, lack of fat content, and so on. I think I am right in saying that the retail butchers are not themselves particularly enthusiastic about handling the meat of these young calves. I think they prefer the somewhat older calves.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is my opinion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. He has quoted from a veterinary expert. We have our veterinary experts as well, and ours say that the meat of a seven days old calf is more mature, wholesome and less liable to post mortem infection than that of a twenty-four hours old calf. I am told that that view is also supported by the retail butchers. I do not think there is any doubt that a calf is better able physically to face the journey and fend for itself when it is seven days old than when it is twenty-four hours old.
It is quite true that, so far as I know, this is something of a precedent in this country, but I should like to point out that there has been, and is, legislation in other countries to prohibit the marketing of calves below a certain age. In Germany, for instance, there was legisla

tion to prohibit the marketing of calves less than three weeks old. Various of the States in the United States have regulations prohibiting the slaughter of calves, or the sale of meat of calves slaughtered before they are three, four, six—even eight weeks old. In Australia, in the State of Victoria, there is a law under which no person may sell for human consumption a veal carcase less than 14 days old. We are not, therefore, starting an entirely new precedent here.
Finally, I am told that during the period when the Ministry—and perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about this—was the sole purchaser of meat in this country it made no formal agreements on the subject of young calves but did discourage their marketing under seven days old by making it known to the farmers and the farmers' unions that the Ministry officials were instructed not to buy calves if they were less than a week old. If, despite that, the very young calves were sent to market they were slaughtered at once, but a very poor price was given deliberately to discourage the farmers from sending them to market in that condition.
I repeat, this is not a party issue but simply a matter of whether this practice is or is not oruel. I venture to suggest that there can be very little need for sending these 24-hours old calves in the conditions in which they are sent to market; that it does impose unnecessary suffering, and that we in this House ought to do anything we can to stop it. There is, in addition, the further argument that the meat is not nearly so wholesome and satisfactory at this very young age.
I realise, and must at once concede that, of course, this proposal would involve the farmers in feeding the calves for another week. No doubt that is an argument, but I am told that so far as this Bill is concerned the loss of milk for human consumption would be only 12,000 gallons a year—[An HON. MEMBER: "£2,000."] It is a negligible amount, and I think one need not take that as a serious argument, though it is a reason for expecting some farmers to oppose this proposal. But I venture to suggest that the balance lies heavily against cruelty, and it is on this ground that I ask the House to pass the Instruction.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I intervene only to say that I am sure nobody wishes to make such a subject as this a party matter. If the right hon. Gentleman's figures are exact—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—they show a very serious state of affairs, at any rate in Leeds. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the matter should be looked into on a nation-wide scale, because I do not think it is really the subject for a Private Bill.
Speaking as a farmer who has to get rid of bull calves very quickly, and representing as I do a large number of dairy farmers, I must say that to keep these calves for the extra time would put an additional strain on small farming households, but I think that even they would agree to it if they felt that it was really the humane thing to do. As I say, it is something which should be looked into on a nation-wide scale, and if my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that that will be done, I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not object to our asking them to withdraw the Instruction.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Where cruelty begins and where it ends is a very difficult question to decide. If a calf is kept for a week on a farm the farmer will give it the least possible amount of milk just to keep it alive, and that in itself is cruelty. In almost every auction in the country a situation such as has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) obtains. There is widespread cruelty to young calves in almost every auction. I have seen young calves brought into the auction before they were dry. I blame the R.S.P.C.A. I think that inspectors at these auctions could take action in innumerable cases if they would and put a stop to this practice, but they do not do so. Someone will have to take action, and I am very glad that one corporation is coming forward to try to put a stop to it. I hope the House will support this Clause.
I was surprised to hear that calves are brought to Leeds from Carlisle. I do not know why that is so; there are any

amount of slaughterhouses between Carlisle and Leeds. Anyone who has seen a load of calves in a cattle wagon knows that it is appalling. When they are carried long distances that is another form of cruelty. Always more than one is dead and others are dying after a long journey.
I do not know just where we should draw the line. If the calves had to be seven days old before they were killed they would be starved for a week. Something should be done to put them out of their misery at the beginning. If this Clause is passed a large number of farmers will kill a calf rather than keep it.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: They will send them to the market instead of straight to the slaughterhouse.

Mr. Kenyon: They will not be able to sell them in the market because the dealers will not keep them for a week. In the first place, they would not have the milk for them and, in the second place they would not get as much money for them at the end of seven days, because of the way in which they had treated them, as the amount they gave for the calf. The whole question bristles with difficulty, but I hope that hon. Members will support the Clause and make a start on a job which should quite definitely be a national question.
To feed a calf properly for a week takes six quarts to two gallons of milk a day. Reckoning that at 3s. a gallon, it is about 42s.

Sir John Barlow: A gallon.

Mr. Kenyon: The hon. Baronet must have very small calves. A calf will drink up to two gallons of milk a day. I know they do not get it, but if the farmer feeds them properly it means that it will cost him 42s. a week. When he takes the calf to auction he will get about 45s. for it. It just is not worth while. He would prefer to kill the calf on the spot as soon as it is born and sell the milk to the dairy.

10.59 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr.


Gaitskell) expressed the feelings of many people in this country on questions of this sort, and the observations made by hon. Friends show that these feelings are not confined to one side of the House. I need hardly say that the Government yield to no one in their wish to stamp out practices which have been described to us tonight. We are as horrified as anyone at the allegations that dead and dying calves are to be found either in wagons or lairages. I will certainly have the position in Leeds investigated to ascertain whether, for any reason, it is out of proportion to that in other parts of the country.
If the Clause answered the problem, we should be supporting it. We want to arrive at the same end as does the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, but we do not think that the Clause is likely to help us to do that, and for that reason we shall support the Instruction. There are three reasons why we think that the Clause will not do. In the first place, it is unnecessary in view of the fact that legislation already exists to deal with the problem. I do not mean that the Clause is unnecessary in the sense that no bad practice has been proved. It would be foolish to argue that in the light of the prosecutions from time to time. We think the Clause unnecessary because there is already a great amount of legislation which, if made use of, would deal with the problem effectively. The Clause would tend to take away from concentration upon the weapons we have already to our hands.
The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal, whether in transit or in a lairage. It is enforced by the police, who work in close liaison with the R.S.P.C.A. The Act is far from being a dead letter because, as recently as 1954, the House increased its penalties from £25 to £50. The Act is quite effective and, with the help of the Society, the police, ordinary people and local authorities like that of Leeds, who, quite properly, feel very strongly on the subject, we should be able to make use of existing legislation in tackling this problem. I am not suggesting that anybody has been lax, but there is plenty of scope for more concentration on this Act.
There are also the Transit of Animals Orders, made under the Diseases of

Animals Act, 1950. They stipulate conditions under which cattle, including calves, must be transported. They lay down very clearly the precautions which must be taken to avoid unnecessary suffering. They include instructions that there must be adequate ventilation in the conveyance and that overcrowding must be avoided, and they strictly prohibit the carriage of unfit animals. Again, there is no need to add to that legislation in the form suggested tonight, if we are vigilant in using existing legislation.
The third piece of legislation is the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, which was amended in 1954. It provides all the powers needed to prevent unnecessary suffering. If that legislation is used, this Clause in a Private Bill is unnecessary at this stage. One could go further. To achieve the objects which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South put to the House in moving terms, the Clause is undesirable, in the sense that it could well cause even more suffering. It could well add to the very matter of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so convincingly.
If we had the Clause in a Bill in respect of Leeds only, with the result that a farmer might be reluctant, for economic reasons, to send his calves to the city, the animals might be sent away over an even longer distance. It would mean that they would be in the unsatisfactory transportation for longer periods than they are now. So, looking at it from that point of view, with the best intentions in the world—and the House knows that the best possible intention is behind this Clause—to agree to the Clause may be adding to the suffering to which we have referred.
The Clause to a large extent would be ineffective, because it is hard to judge the age of these calves. That is admitted all along the line. One cannot say with certainty whether a calf is up to the six, seven, or eight days. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that when the Ministry of Food ordered the purchasing it sent out an instruction that it did not want calves of this age going to the markets instead of to the slaughterhouses. With the best will in the world, it was found difficult to give effect to the instruction because of the problem of deciding age. If we agreed to this seven days' term, the law could be brought into


contempt, and it would not be as effective as I know the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish it to be.
The Government are always prepared to consider new measures to protect animals, but it thinks that the greatest need at this stage is not for more legislation, but to make effective the existing legislation. If we can approach this humane and moving problem in that spirit we would be achieving the objective we all have in mind. It is because the Government feel that this Clause in this Private Bill is not necessary that they advise the House to support the Instruction to omit it.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The question we have to consider is not whether this Clause goes through but whether the matter should be decided now in the House, or whether it ought to go upstairs to be decided by a Committee which will be able to hear local and general evidence about it. All the other matters which have come forward in connection with this Bill were matters which the House could feel had some sort of party content. That cannot be felt about this Clause. It was obviously put in by the Leeds Corporation because it felt that it was right and effective in the interest of humanity. I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's description of the legislation with interest; but the fact remains that these young calves, in considerable numbers, have died in the circumstances which my right hon. Friend described. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to tame their party feelings for a moment.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to infer that we have party feelings on this. I said that we have no feelings of that kind. I hope he will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Mitchison: I said that I was sure that I could say that there was no party point in this. Perhaps I did not choose my words well, but all the Divisions so far appear to have been on strictly party

lines, and to have involved matters which hon. Members, rightly or wrongly, thought were party questions. I said, and I repeat, that there is no party question which I can see here. Therefore, I beg hon. Members—if "tame" is the wrong word, perhaps they will find another—not to approach this matter in a party spirit, but simply to consider the one question of whether we are more likely to come to the right decision here on a matter which obviously involves among other things, a conflict of veterinary opinion, or whether a Committee upstairs looking at the matter judicially and with the very great benefit of evidence, is more likely to do the right thing.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press this matter to a Division and to let the Clause go upstairs. I shall not appeal to them about animal cruelty, because I think that is quite unnecessary. I do not believe that anybody in the House would set the comparatively small loss to the farmer against a bit of unconscious brutality—I am sure we would not do that. Surely, if ever there was a case, not for letting the Clause go through—I do not ask for that—but simply to let it go upstairs and be considered on the evidence, local and general, this is it.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I ask the House to do what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just asked and let the Clause be examined in Committee. We are all appalled at the evidence of cruelty which we have heard tonight. I think the Parliamentary Secretary himself would agree that his brief contained no evidence whatever of prosecutions which have taken place under all the legislation to which he referred.
Surely, a Private Bill is just the kind of Measure in which we can carry out something which is an experiment. It may be wrong, but if it is considered by the Committee very carefully and the Committee passes it, I am quite sure it can do no harm whatever.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 127; Noes 91.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Alport, C. J. M.
Green, A.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Ashton, H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Gurden, Harold
Page, R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, I. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pott, H. P.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bryan, P.
Hurd, A. R.
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Studholme, H. G.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kaberry, D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, R. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Currie, C. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lagden, G. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Touche, Sir Gordon


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Vosper, D. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wall, Major Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Freeth, D. K.
Marples, A. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mawby, R. L.



George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst and


Godber, J. B.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wing Commander Bullus.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Nicholls, Harmar





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Randall, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hoy, J. H.
Rhodes, H.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. C.
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McInnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
Mahon, S.
Usborne, H. C.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheedon, W. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mason, Roy
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
Oram, A. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, C. A.



Harbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Charles Pannell and


Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.
Miss Alice Bacon.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.

Question again proposed—

Orders of the Day — POLICE FORCES (PAY)

11.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): Perhaps I might just pick up the threads of the remarks I was making when we were interrupted at seven o'clock and bring the reply that I was making to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to a close. I was referring to the question of legislation to enable future awards of this kind to have retrospective effect. As my right hon. Friend told the deputation in which the hon. Gentleman was, he is having discussion with his colleagues on the possibility of doing this; he said that he would do that, and that promise is being implemented. But the issue, as I was saying when we adjourned this business earlier, is a little wider than perhaps the hon. Gentleman realises.
We are all familiar with the arguments in favour of legislation to make these awards retrospective, and I need not rehearse them here, but there is this to be added. It does not concern the Home Office alone. The same question arises in relation to members of other services whose rates of pay are prescribed by Statutory Instruments. For instance, there are the firemen, the probation officers and the teachers. Indeed, it is possible that the Amendment might have repercussions over an even wider field. I do not want to exaggerate the possibility, but I do emphasise this, not in order to create difficulties, but to remove from the hon. Gentleman's mind any suggestion that we are being dilatory over this. What I have said indicates why my right hon. Friend cannot commit himself immediately on the subject of legislation. Others are concerned, and it must be discussed with them. It is being discussed. Beyond that I cannot go at this point.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am not raising the question of

future legislation. I have not done so this evening, and it was not in my speech. The point I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to address himself to is: Why cannot the Home Secretary use the Consolidated Fund Bill as a means of meeting a retrospective pay claim for the award of last December? Let us leave the future on one side. Here we have a Consolidated Fund Bill which he is perfectly entitled to use for the purpose of meeting retrospective pay claims of this sort. If I may say so with respect, up to the point of interruption I do not think we have had a reply on that matter.

Mr. Deedes: I thought I had made it clear to the hon. Gentleman. The possibility of acting, short of legislation, had been explored very thoroughly, and in our opinion, in respect of his own particular proposal, it fell down over the difficulty of the local authorities, which I think he accepted.

Mr. Callaghan: No, I do not.

Mr. Deedes: Well, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have gone into this myself pretty thoroughly. I think there is substance in that, and I think it is substance which it is very difficult to gainsay.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the local authorities objected to the question of some arrangement being made in regard to retrospection on this issue? As far as I know the position—and I was deputy-chairman of the Liverpool Watch Committee—the point of view that we take is that we feel these negotiations that take place take place over far too long a period, and I am certain that my Watch Committee would be very, very anxious to meet the position of retrospective pay if some arrangement were made through the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Deedes: That may well be. I am afraid that the point I made earlier remains, that there would be a very considerable chance of objection being made if the payments were made, and those objections could then be dealt with only under Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: If there is a possibility of objection as a result of any legislation introduced under


this Bill, what in fact is the position? If we are told that objections were received from this, that or the other authority, and the Home Office did not introduce it, that is another matter. If the Joint Under-Secretary cannot say that there have been objections, he has no argument.

Mr. Deedes: Until payments were made, whether there might or might not be objections is a hypothetical question. We are advised that cause for objection would lie. That is the risk to which police authorities would be exposed. That being so, the House should be so informed. I should not say that here was a likely solution. I am giving our view about the consequences which might flow from the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Callaghan: It is important that the House should know all the facts. When the superintendents' pay claim was conceded last September, they were awarded back pay. That was done by means of a circular from the Home Office to the local authorities informing them that if they would back-date the pay, it was agreed that such expenditure as they incurred would rank for grant. What possible objection is there to doing for constables what has been done for superintendents and chief constables?

Mr. Deedes: I can see the hon. Member's point. It may well be that this would be done without objection. All I am saying is that cause for objection would lie. If that were so and the objection were made and we had said that so far as we could see police authorities could go forward on the lines suggested, I should have misled the House and the local authorities.

Mrs. Braddock: Supposing my local authority, for instance, intimated to the Home Office that on this matter it was prepared to meet its part of the financial responsibility for retrospective payment, what attitude would the Home Office take then? Would it say that in view of the fact that a large local authority was prepared to accept financial responsibility, the amount would rank for grant from the Home Office?

Mr. Deedes: No, I do not think that we would. In the light of what has emerged from going into this thoroughly with the Treasury and other Departments concerned, I do not think that we can accept that proposition.

Mr. Ede: Who might object? Is it the police authority, or is it a ratepayer or local government elector objecting at the local government audit? Who is the possible objector whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

Mr. Deedes: A ratepayer, where there are no public audit arrangements, or the auditor where those arrangements exist.

Mr. Ede: Did anyone in fact object when the pay of chief constables and superintendents was raised in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?

Mr. Deedes: Without consulting the record, I am not prepared to give an answer, because I am very anxious not to mislead the House. Whether or not objection was then made does not alter the position which would arise if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East were put into effect. It is quite wrong to change ground on that.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for giving way. He has been very good about it, and I am grateful to him. May I put a point without getting beyond the bounds of order? The Joint Under-Secretary has referred to the fact that the Home Secretary is considering legislation which would have the effect of making the issue clear beyond doubt in the future. If a ratepayer can take exception now, why would he not possibly take exception when legislation was introduced?

Mr. Deedes: I am not seeking to avoid further discussion on these grounds, but perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman by telling him that they are not the only grounds which, in our opinion, make his proposal impracticable. There is another ground, and perhaps I had better relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman by telling him what it is. The matter is complex, but I will try to be as lucid as I can.
I am advised that it would be possible to provide restrospective payment of grants in respect of the December award by introducing a Supplementary Estimate and incurring this expenditure on the authority of the Appropriation Act in anticipation of enabling legislation. But that may be done only if there is no other practicable way of achieving the same object. I am advised that there would


be an alternative way of providing for the payment in the new legislation and deferring payment until it had been passed. Therefore it would seem that the use of the Appropriate Act might well be challenged unless it could be convincingly shown that the alternative was not practicable. The hon. Gentleman can give to that what weight he pleases, but it is an additional ground to those I have already mentioned in respect of local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter and complained of its abruptness. I am anxious that there shall be no bad blood about this. There are two ways of conveying an official decision of this kind. One is by a letter which is quite brief and unadorned, of which the letter referred to was an example. The second is by a more elaborate letter in which all the arguments are presented and which culminates in a decision. Both methods are used on different occasions from different offices. Both types of letter are couched in courteous terms, and this letter was no exception. No discourtesy was intended on this occasion, and if it has been attributed to the letter, I am sorry. It was not intended and I hope my words may remove any misunderstanding on the subject.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am delighted to have an opportunity of saying a word on this matter, as for some years I have been connected with the police force in Birmingham and a member of the watch committee of the city council. Anyone occupying such a position cannot fail to be impressed by the quality of the police forces of the country and the great difficulties besetting them at present. In these negotiations with the police where, quite properly, and I do not contest it, there is no sort of official trade union, it is important not only that justice should be done, but that it should be seen to be done. There is a great disparity between the treatment meeted out to high ranking officers in the matter of pay negotiations, particularly so far as the Home Office is concerned, and the treatment of the ordinary rankers in the forces.
I have never met anyone, whether a member of a watch committee, a chief constable, superintendent or anyone else

who has tried to defend the indefensible as the Joint Under-Secretary is now attempting to do. It is important that recruiting for the police forces should be encouraged, and in Birmingham we have done all we can in that regard. The watch committee has spent much time in deciding how best to get recruits against the attraction of the high rates of pay offered in industry. One thing which will discourage recruiting is if people feel they are not getting a square deal over their pay. That is an important psychological point.
I have the circular which the Home Office sent out in respect of superintendents' pay, dated 27th September, 1955, and the relevant paragraph 3 states:
The Secretary of State hopes that police authorities will give effect to the agreement of the Panel that the new scales should operate as from 8mb September, 1955. Additional expenditure thus incurred will, subject to audit, rank for police grant.
It is quite clear that the Home Office is in an impossible position in having sent out a circular like this in respect of superintendents' pay and not having done the same thing for the ordinary constable. All local authorities that I know of, and certainly our members of the A.M.C., are only too delighted, because they think that the police have had a raw deal for years and they are anxious about the establishment of the police force and about maintaining law and order, especially in the large industrial cities where the crime wave is on the increase. They are anxious to see that justice is done. They were happy to receive the circular in respect of superintendents' pay, and they cannot understand why they cannot receive a similar circular indicating the same degree of magnanimity in respect of police constables.
I would draw the attention of the House to a copy which I have of the last eighteen awards from the Industrial Court and the last award from the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. These are nineteen awards in respect of many cases which went to arbitration, and if I read out one or two of these it will be seen that they are representative of a wide range of industry. They include the Radio Officers' Union and Marconi International Marine Company Ltd.; the Officers' Side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for Justices' Clerks Assistants and the Management Side of the same Committee; the National


Federation of Building Trade Operatives; the Staff Association of Edinburgh College of Art; U.S.D.A.W. and Cable and Wireless Ltd.; the Nurses' and Midwives' Council of the Whitley Council for Health Services; the United Road Transport Workers Association. In every one of these cases retrospective pay has been awarded.
Why should the policeman on the beat, whom every chief constable in the country will say is the lynch-pin of the police force and of law and order, be singled out for this treatment? This treatment is not in accord with general industrial practice in this country. It is not in accord with what the Home Office has done in respect of other ranks, with what the local authorities award committees want, or with the views of any reasonable, intelligent person who concerns himself with industrial relations.
There is no case for the attitude of the Home Office, and I beg the Under-Secretary, even after the reply that he has given, in view of the weight of evidence which is against him, to reconsider this matter and to be a little more magnanimous and charitable to the constable on the beat of whom we are all proud. By adopting a reasonable attitude, the hon. Gentleman will enjoy greater confidence from them, and it will also be of the greatest help in assisting to build up our police forces whose strength, even with the latest increase, is still depleted.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: It will be readily recognised that one of the most pleasing elements in the relationship between employers and employees during the past few years has been their readiness to submit disputes to arbitration. That should be encouraged, and one way of doing so is by proving the efficacy of arbitration in settling disputes and in securing complete justice between the parties. The two main elements of arbitration are, I think, confidence and speed. It is obvious that the disputants should have confidence in those who are to arbitrate, but of equal importance is a speedy result.
We often find that arbitrators cannot proceed as quickly as they would wish, but they are able to make up for loss of time by resorting to the principle of retrospection. Those who submit their

cases to arbitration are aware of the prevalence of that practice, which is sound as regards justice and psychologically desirable. If there is one class which, more than any other, should enjoy the benefit of retrospection it is the police force. The police are the only employees who are not, by law, allowed to resort to strike action.

Mr. Ede: They have not even a trade union.

Mr. Jones: Others can resort to strike action, but not the police. They are compelled at all times to resort to arbitration and are, therefore, the very people who should enjoy all its benefits, including that of the retrospective award. We find, however, that no such payment can be made to them, even though the official side—the employers—and the arbitrators are ready to concede it on the merits of the case.
Let us consider what happened very recently. The police made a claim for an increase some time last June. Due to the failure of negotiations, the claim was submitted to arbitration in September. The arbitrators made their award in the middle of December of last year. The Home Secretary then lost no time in giving effect to the award. As a matter of fact, it took him only 48 hours, and for that he deserves every credit. It took the arbitrators three months to make known their decision, but the justice of the police claim—first made not three, but six months previously—was proved by the award, and both the official side and the arbitrators agreed that retrospective payment would be fully justified. Unfortunately, it was not legally possible.
Our plea tonight is that the Minister should make it possible, and ways and means have been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am afraid that on this issue the Home Office is proving very niggardly indeed. As has been pointed out, we are very proud of our police force and what would make it a still better force would be to make it a contented one. While these people feel that they have been robbed of part of the value of the award of the arbitrator they cannot feel very contented.
With my hon. Friends I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and not to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. The


whole effect of the award is being spoiled by the niggardly manner in which the request for retrospection is being treated. Even if the retrospection does not go as far as June it should go to September.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Charles Howell: I am glad of the opportunity of supporting hon. Friends and I intend to be brief in my remarks, despite the fact that an hon. Member on the Government Front Bench said that we had plenty of time and then skipped out.

Mr. Ede: I have plenty of time; my train does not leave until 5.16.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member who said that we had plenty of time immediately skipped out of the Chamber and has not come back again.
I want to emphasise a point which has not yet been made in regard to this negotiation. The superintendents, through their Police Federation, accepted the offer and the reason why the other part of the case went to arbitration was because it was regarded as totally inadequate. Whilst it is true that the police, as is expected of them, show a high moral attitude, the Government should also adopt the same moral standard in applying the increase to the other section of the force. If there was a need for an increase in salaries and it became effective for superintendents in September, obviously it should be effective for the other section of the force which felt aggrieved and took the matter to arbitration, from the same date. Police constables and sergeants should have the claim back-dated to the same date as superintendents.
It seems significant that the award to the superintendents was made retrospective. Otherwise, the superintendents would have said that they would in future go to arbitration. I should like the Joint Under Secretary to tell us how many men who were disgruntled left the force in the period between the time when the claim was made and the finding of the arbitration tribunal. I know from personal experience that a number left in that period and that they are leaving even now. Some inducement is necessary to keep men in the force.
For some years my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) and I served on a watch committee. We

know the value and the difficulties of the police. I say there is no more valuable force than the police force. There is not the discipline in the Army that there is in the police force. If a policeman is seen by an inspector speaking to someone in the street, and the inspector thinks he is not performing his duty, the policeman is "skinned" as a "fizzer" for gossiping. If the constable does not tell people what they want to know, they can go to the station and complain that he was not helpful. We know that that does not happen, and in proof of it every American actress who lands on our shores says, "Aren't your policemen wonderful?"
I hope that the Government realise that they can do something wonderful for a wonderful force by sending to the watch committees a letter in terms identical with those of the letter sent in respect of superintendents. I congratulate them on saying in that case that there should be a back-dating. Let them not weaken in the second part of the same negotiations. Let them say that the same date must apply to police constables. I hope that the Under-Secretary will do that and so gain the approbation of everyone on this side of the House.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: I make no apology for detaining the House at this late hour because, like my hon. Friends, I am convinced that an obvious injustice is being perpetrated upon our police constables. It is very desirable, therefore, that the House and the Under-Secretary of State should listen carefully to the very considered views which are being advanced from this side of the House and see whether it is not possible, even now, to right this injustice.
It is quite right that the problem facing trade unions in the matter of arbitration should be placed before the House. The problem of retaining faith in arbitration tribunals is a very serious one. The more often there are incidents which indicate that there is an undermining of the workers' faith in the arbitration courts, the more we shall encourage workers to think in terms of action in another direction. I am not suggesting that our police force is thinking in those terms, but those of us who are anxious that the two sides of industry should gat together and, if necessary, go to arbitration and argue the


case out, are concerned that the arbitration courts should retain the confidence of the people and so accelerate their work.
I should have liked to have addressed the House at length on this subject because there are a number of substantial points to be made. We, on this side of the House, believe that this matter could have been dealt with by means of a Supplementary Estimate. It is a pertinent point that the official side, which includes representatives of the local authorities, expressed its desire at the arbitration court in 1955 that there should be retrospective payment. If that is so, why the hesitancy on the part of the Home Office to apply that retrospection? I do not believe that there is a stony heart there, and the purpose of the debate is to discover whether it is possible to have something done.
It ought to have been done because prior to 1946 it was permissible. If that is so, and if it was only because of the interpretation of the Law Officers that it has not been applied since, I claim that it ought to have been done in the light of what was the practice before 1946. It ought also to have been done because of the sympathy expressed by a number of people. The then Home Secretary, three years ago—Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was—said he was prepared to introduce legislation to deal with the matter. We have heard nothing more. Then there were the comments of the official side in 1955. There were the comments of the arbitration court, which was in sympathy with the claim for the police officers. These grounds were good reasons for something being done.
Broadly speaking, in industry backdating is not unusual when there have been long negotiations. It is good because it retains faith in the arbitration courts. Let me quickly give a few examples. In 1951, a number of Post Office grades went to arbitration. That was on 16th May, 1951. There was back-dating of these claims to 1st January, 1951. In 1954 there was a series of Post Office claims. The last claim was heard on 13th July, 1954. Backdating was given to March, 1954. Certain officers of the Metropolitan Water Board went to arbitration on 15th December, 1955, and there was back-dating to 1st

May, 1955, for some of the supervisory grades, and to 1st July for some of the other grades. That was although the arbitration was given on the 15th December, 1955.
Another instance is the recent prison officers' award. The claim was lodged in September, 1955. It was settled in March, 1956. The Prison Commissioners offered back-dating to 1st January. The staff side claimed that the date ought to be 1st October, 1955. The settlement was for 1st November, 1955. The settlement was reached in March, 1956, and there was back-dating to 1st November, 1955. If it can be done for prison officers, we and the Home Secretary cannot complain if police constables also expect retrospection.
The police suffer a special hardship, like the Civil Service. Their pay does not keep pace with the pay rises in industry and rises in prices. There is always a time lag. Pay rises in the Civil Service and the police have to wait until there is a general movement of wages in outside industry. That is a further argument for retrospection, which would put right a serious disability. Those of us who have watched pay increases during the last four or five years have noted that there is almost an annual pay increase in most industries.
What has happened in the case of police officers? They had one increase in July, 1949, and had to wait two years for the next one, until July, 1951. Their next was in January, 1954, nearly three years later. Now there is the award of December, 1955, for which they waited another two years. They have, therefore, a second disability. They must always wait for the wage cycle to move in outside industry before they can do anything. They are in this position because of the absence of any union to negotiate on their behalf.
There is a sound case for the Under-Secretary to go back to the Home Office and see whether something cannot be done. It ought to be possible to do something. The fact of withholding retrospection in this way has its effect upon pensions and loss of pension rights. Is it not possible for the Home Office to do something?

12.1 a.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have two matters to raise. I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said about legislation being required to deal with this matter. In view of his comments that for chief constables and chief superintendents legislation was not necessary, and of the comments which have been made by the Home Office generally, I take him to mean that the Government will in the very near future introduce the necessary legislation to effect retrospection for inspectors, sergeants and constables. If so, I hope the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to state the position clearly.
It is very necessary in the police forces that there should not appear to be any question of privilege, or that if a man happens to be a chief constable or chief superintendent something different will be done for him from what can be done for inspectors, sergeants and constables. The question has caused great discussion and concern in the police forces because they have been left out completely. It is all very well to make promises, but, unfortunately, constables and sergeants cannot live on promises. What I and my watch committee are anxious to know is whether, arising from the Under-Secretary's comments, it is the Government's intention almost immediately to bring forward legislation to enable the lower ranks to be paid retrospectively.
What would have happened in the case of chief constables and chief superintendents had all ranks agreed to accept the award? Would the Home Office have sent to all watch committees and police authorities a notice that if they were prepared to pay the full amount it would rank for grant; or would the Home Office have drawn a distinction and said that if the watch committees would pay the chief constables and chief superintendents the retrospective payment would rank for grant, but that something different must be done for inspectors, sergeants and constables?
This is a very important matter. When I interjected during the Under-Secretary's remarks, it was to discover how many watch committees or police authorities the Home Office consider would have refused to make the retrospective payments had they been asked to do so.

In an area like mine where we are just over 500 short of establishment, where it is very difficult indeed to recruit to the police force and where the standards required for recruitment are high to begin with, it makes it very difficult indeed if there is any suggestion of privilege for the higher ranks which is not available to the lower ranks.
I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm that his comments tonight about legislation mean that the Home Office has now definitely decided that the matter is of such importance that it intends to bring forward legislation to enable retrospective pay to be paid to the lower ranks of the police force.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: will at once declare my interest in this matter in that I have relatives and friends in the police force, and that anything that is done on this question of retrospective pay will benefit them. I make that point because, when this award was made, the first thing said by its beneficiaries was that this case had been handled extremely well. They thought that the Federation's case had been put over very ably by the appropriate body.
I was then asked what chance there was of the award being back-dated. I understood that to do that needed a regulation from the Home Office. It would appear, however, that no such regulation is needed in the case of chief constables, but only for the other ranks. The reason why regulations are needed is because some local authorities might possibly want to contract out in the case of chief constables.
Therefore, the point put by both my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and myself to the Under-Secretary was a valid point. If the Under-Secretary had got up and said that the Home Office had received objections from the committee representing the boroughs and that opposition from them was anticipated, that would have been a valid point.
The truth is that the Home Office did not attempt to find out. I do not know why it did not go into the question of making the award retrospective, thus letting the police feel that the Home Office was really concerned about their conditions. This has caused a great deal


of concern, not only in regard to this claim but in regard to future claims also.
We know that the police have no trade union to represent them. Many people serving in the police force feel that it is a rather disgraceful business that in the year 1956 the police have no official trade union. It is strongly held that the time may come when something will have to be done about it. The police are not encouraged if the Home Office does not try to meet what is, after all, a very genuine complaint.
I wish to ask the Under-Secretary what would be the position if, in fact, the Federation now go to arbitration on this matter of retrospection and wins its case? In that event, the Home Office would be in a spot, would it not? Why does not the Under-Secretary show a little anticipation in the matter and say, "We will avoid that hurdle; we will do it straight away"?
I am very surprised that not a single Conservative Member has risen to support this plea. This debate will be read by many members of the police forces. A little prodding from the Tory back benches would be helpful. I know that hon. Members opposite are as anxious as we are—and I will put that on record so that it shall not be said that this is a party point—to see that the police get decent wages and conditions. The fact is that not a single hon. Member opposite got up to support the claim of retrospection. I do not believe that those on the benches opposite know anything about the matter.
The Under-Secretary must realise that if there is a genuine grievance he will have to have some ideas about the matter. If the policeman's claim is right and justified, the Home Office must show some initiative. Everyone has been talking about the police constable, and in view of the fact that I have a brother who is a sergeant in the police, it is my view, quite frankly, that their case is so good that it ought to be conceded straight away.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) very nearly put the Under-Secretary in a great difficulty, because as far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned he does not need to make an order. The Metropolitan Police are servants of the

Home Secretary; they are in exactly the same position as the postmen, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) alluded. The difficulty that arises with a very limited number of people is that they are nominally employed by local authorities but that a very substantial part of their salaries depends upon Government grants: the police 50 per cent., teachers 60 per cent., and firemen 25 per cent.; I am not quite sure what the percentage is for probation officers.
Those people suffer this disability merely because they are local government employees, although half or more of their salaries depends upon a Government grant and the actual amount that is paid depends upon orders made by the Ministers for the Departments concerned. Therefore, as far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, if "Barkis is willin' "the marriage can take place. I hope it will not be forgotten that if there is this difficulty that some local police authority somewhere in the remote parts of Great Britain might object, if the Home Secretary gave them a friendly lead they would look rather shabbier than they would in any event.
This problem of police pay is one that has given a great deal of concern since 1919. In 1919, there was a police strike; it affected the Metropolitan Police and it affected Liverpool. Liverpool has never recovered in the arrangements for the police from what happened then, because they had to recruit a large number of new men to take the place of the strikers and they all retired about the same time, twenty-five or thirty years afterwards, so that now they are back in the old trouble.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), whose figures I am quite sure we can accept, says that they are still 500 under strength, and it all dates back to that particular problem. As a result of it, it was enacted that the police should not be allowed to join a trade union, but one of the Acts—I forget whether it was the 1919 or the 1921 Act—established the Federation, and every police officer up to the rank of inspector is a member of the Federation. The policemen came to me and said they would not have anything to do with the women because the Act referred to "policemen."
I told the Permanent Under-Secretary to fetch me the Act, in which one does not find anything about "policemen"; sometimes they are "officers," sometimes they are "constables," but both are words of common gender, and every person in the police force up to the rank of inspector is a member of the Federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is the consultant to the Federation, so he informs us today. I hope that he gets the same pay as consultants do in the medical profession.
When I was Home Secretary, I had several of these difficulties and the first was solved by what was called the Oaksey Report. The words of the Under-Secretary tonight were very carefully chosen, and he made as good a case for the Department as could be made. But he allowed one word to slip out, "Treasury." The Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile and the hon. Gentleman shone the light on him only once, but it was just enough. When the Oaksey Report came the Treasury made little niggling objections: 6d. off the boot allowance and that kind of thing, so that there was never a feeling that the award was made graciously.
Ernest Bevin who, after all, knew something about trade unionism and the way to effect a settlement that removed all ill-feeling, said, "You cannot do this to these men who have no trade union. You have a statutory machine by which to deal with them. You cannot expect to get satisfaction and content in the police forces, if, after they get an award, you start niggling."
What is the position here? The chief constables have had their award. There was a time when chief constables could not get pay increases out of the local authorities. I inquired what could be done to deal with the matter on their behalf and the Permanent Secretary said, "You can make an order against which there can be no Prayer. You can make the order and the Association of Municipal Corporations will say that it will not recommend payment to chief constables." I made the order and now local authorities accept the circulars. I wonder whether they would have done that if an order had never been made.
I want to deal with the subject apart from its relation to the Metropolitan Police where there is no difficulty, because the Home Secretary pays them and does not even have to make an order. He sends a note to the Receiver and says that from next pay day every constable will have £1,000 a year and they all get £20 a week.

Mr. Mellish: £19 5s.

Mr. Ede: This could be done even before the end of the financial year, if an order were made that for the year ending 31st March, 1956, pay calculated at a certain rate as from a certain date was to be paid in a lump sum between now and the end of the financial year. It is a little complicated to work out, but if a draftsman is given the job he will do it. It is astonishing what a draftsman can do once he is given instructions.
The police forces have been working under the very gravest difficulties. Shortage of men in the Metropolitan Police, in Birmingham, Liverpool and some of the other great industrial cities means that men have to put in hours out of all proportion to what they should work. That makes their wives very discontented and more men are lost to the police forces through having their wives discontented than through any other reason.
Whether as a result of consultation or not I do not know—I rather suspect that it had something to do with it—but they have managed to get the impression from the arbitrators, from the local authorities, that they would like to see back-dating in this case. Let us realise what happens if there is not back-dating. It means that people have to negotiate in a hurry and that is the problem. The result is that the moment an objection is raised by the employers, when there is to be no back-dating, the employees say, "They are playing tricky." That is not a very good thing, if we expect to obtain a suitable settlement.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the speeches which have been made and that he will persuade his Minister to go to the Treasury and point out the necessity of giving effect to this recommendation. Look at the astounding thing he did for the chief constables. He got back pay for them in two different financial years. The back pay between 1st January and 31st March was in one


financial year of the local authorities which had already been closed and the accounts submitted for audit. If he can do that, I do not see why he should not make an equally strong appeal to any recalcitrant local authorities to do the same thing for the lower ranks in the forces. If there were no objections from ratepayers or local government auditors when he did it for the chief constables, why should he anticipate such objections if he does the same thing for the inspectors, sergeants and constables?
If there are objections, the remedy is in his own hands. Then, as a matter of emergency, he can legislate to deal with the particular problem. I think that the hon. Gentleman put up the best case possible, and I would say to some of my hon. Friends that it is no use blaming the Home Office. The Federation used to come to me to complain about the Home Office when I was Home Secretary. I explained that the person they had to deal with was the Home Secretary who was responsible for policy. I sometimes feel that my hon. Friends are a little unfair to the people at the Home Office who have to carry out a policy decided on by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the present Home Secretary would not wish to shelter behind a story that in some way the Home Office acts in contradiction to his wishes or does not properly advise him when these things have to be decided. When the Home Secretary reaches a decision, I am sure that every official in the Department will carry it out loyally and effectively.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that if he desires to address us again this morning hon. Members on this side of the House are unlikely to raise any objection, but we would like an assurance from him that he has listened to what we have said and that he will faithfully report it to his right hon. Friend. We hope that he will feel assured that the feeling on this matter is very deep and that we are sincere in our desire to see the recommendations of the arbitrators and all the employers, except the Home Office, implemented as soon as possible.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: By the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to some of the things which have been said during the last hour or so. Perhaps I might begin by saying—I think this may

get agreement on both sides of the House—that the best arguments are not improved by an interval of four hours in the middle of them. I got the impression during some of the speeches from the other side of the House that not all the remarks that I made, admittedly very hastily, just before seven o'clock had been heard or, if they had been heard, had been assimilated.
May I acknowledge gratefully what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just said about the Home Office, without accepting all the implications which he knows lies behind the remarks.
We have not been discussing the desirability of retrospective pay. We have been discussing its practicability in present circumstances. The first point that I would stress is that it is the pay increases made by regulations to which there is objection to giving retrospective effect. To take up one point that has been made, the superintendents' and chief constables' pay is not fixed by regulation.

Mr. Ede: It can be.

Mr. Deedes: It can be, but the position is different from that of the federated ranks, and a grant of retrospection is not, therefore, open to such a clear objection because it is not directly contrary to the regulations. I think I should add, since remarks have been made about favour to one side or the other, that generally speaking retrospection does not give a privilege to the chief constables and the superintendents over the other ranks. What usually happens—and I think the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—is that the pay of the higher ranks is settled later than the lower ranks, and the new scale of the higher ranks is made retrospective to the date of increase for the lower ranks. That is what happened in 1954. Thus they all start equal.
There has been a suggestion that there is differentiation between the two categories, and that is not so.

Mr. Callaghan: One of my hon. Friends—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Howell)—pointed out that in the case of the superintendents on this recent award they accepted an offer which was made retrospective to 7th September. As part


of the same negotiations the constables', sergeants' and inspectors' award dates only from December, so that in this case the superintendents have ante-dated the other ranks by the same negotiations.

Mr. Deedes: I do not dispute the point, but I want to establish that there is not invariably a differentiation of privilege between the two ranks.
There is one other point to which I ought to refer. The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised it when she spoke of the willingness of her watch committee to go forward with this matter and take any risks which might be entailed. I should make it clear, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the difficulty about making retrospective payments in advance of legislation is not the possibility of objection by the police authorities who make the payments.
The difficulty is that they would be open to challenge by the district auditor or, in the case of an authority not subject to district audit, by the ratepayers, and then the risk of surcharge by the district auditor could only be obviated by Section 228 of the Local Government Act, with all that is entailed. I expect the hon. Lady knows that it is not intended to give blanket approval for this kind of thing. It is intended for the exceptional occurrence, such as a slip or an oversight by somebody.
The hon. Lady asked whether she could take it that legislation was definitely going to be introduced. Her interpretation of what I said must remain her own. It is not what I said. My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would discuss the prospects of legislation with his colleagues. As I said earlier this evening, that is not a matter which he can decide alone. There are other Departments involved, for reasons I have mentioned—teachers, firemen, and so on, are on the same footing. These discussions are going forward, but because of

the number of other people concerned my right hon. Friend cannot reach an immediate decision on his own account.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields twitted me with making one small slip, and I hope that he will take it in good part if I suggest that he, too, made a small slip in his remarks. He alluded—rather attractively I thought—to the suggestion of the lump sum payment made in the manner he described. That, I understand, is a suggestion which has been considered before, as may be within his recollection. It arose in 1948 in respect of some arrangement being made with the firemen. It was then concluded that it would be a rather colourable device to circumvent the view that regulations could not be made with retrospective effect. It may be that that incident has slipped his mind.

Mr. Ede: Oh, no—and I was not drafting it. The hon. Gentleman will realise that. I always left it to the draftsman, when I wanted to do something very difficult, to find a form of words that would hide what I was doing from everyone but myself—and, believe me, the draftsman never let me down.

Mr. Deedes: But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that what appeared to be a colourable device in 1948 is a colourable device in 1956. I have certainly noted the observations which have been made, and so has my right hon. Friend, and I hope that those who raised this subject will feel that they have had a satisfactory discussion. It is a matter the importance of which I do not under-rate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Osborne added.—[Mr. Wills.]

Orders of the Day — TUBERCULOUS DISABLED, SCOTLAND (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

12.32 a.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: At this early hour in the morning I wish to raise a question that has caused me much concern over a considerable period. It is a matter which I have raised on two occasions by Questions in the House, and I have also raised it as a member of the Women's Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Labour. The worry, the frustration, and indeed, what I would call the heartbreak of those who suffer from tuberculosis in their attempts to find employment has been brought very forcibly to my attention by such people coming to me—when all their own efforts have been of no avail—to ask me to try to find work for them.
I think that most hon. Members must have had the same sort of experience. All of them, and the Ministers, must be aware that when persons who have suffered from tuberculosis attempt to get work it very often happens that when the employer finds that the men or the women have suffered from that disease he finds that there is no work available for them, even on occasions when it has been made abundantly clear to the employer that the man or woman no longer suffers from that disease and would be able to do a job as any other normal man or woman could.
The difficulty of finding work for those who suffer from tuberculosis is very greatly increased in areas where unemployment is high. Where many are on the unemployment register today in what is known as a time of full employment we are often told that those on the register for any length of time are really unemployable. I wish to show by figures taken from the Ministry of Labour Gazette that that is just not the case. I would be willing to say that a very small number of those people might form a small hard core of unemployable people, but I am certain that the majority should not be placed in that category.
When we look at the unemployment figures for January, the latest figures I could get, we find that in Glasgow there were 15,360 unemployed. I looked for a comparable city in England and found that Birmingham, with a population slightly larger than that of Glasgow, in the same period had 3,635 unemployed, a very small number compared with Glasgow—less than 25 per cent. of the Glasgow figure in a city of comparable size.
Those figures support my contention that the majority of people in our Scottish cities, particularly in Glasgow, and in our industrial areas, although many of them have been unemployed for a very long time, are certainly not unemployable. Everything depends on the availability of employment in the area. I suggest that it is easy for a man or woman to find employment in Birmingham when they would never be able to find it in Glasgow or any of our industrial areas in Scotland such as Lanarkshire where unemployment is high.
In a Government document entitled "Services for the Disabled" I found these words:
The problem of the industrial rehabilitation and settlement of those suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is one of the most difficult of all the disablement problems.
Those words apply to Britain in general. How much more difficult is it for those who suffer from tuberculosis or those who have suffered from it to find rehabilitation in work in Glasgow, the West of Scotland, or indeed most of our Scottish industrial areas. Those men and women in our industrial areas know that they are defeated in their object right at the beginning.
In Scotland, over the last few years there have been and are great efforts to rid our country of this scourge of tuberculosis, but the responsibility of the Government and we as a nation certainly does not end there. It seems to me that there is a moral responsibility on any Christian nation to do everything possible to help in the rehabilitation of these disabled people.
One of the best ways of rehabilitating them and returning them to a normal way of life is to provide employment for them. There is only one way of providing employment for those who are still considered to be infected by this disease,


and that is to provide sheltered work in a Remploy Factory. I put a Question to the Minister of Labour on 6th March. In reply to one of my supplementary questions, the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer which I can only describe as a "smart alec" one. He said:
 … it may be as well to explain why seven Remploy factories for this purpose were built in England, and, under her Government, none was provided in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1919.]
I made further inquiries from the Minister's own Department and found that between 1946 and 1951, 89 Remploy factories were opened in Britain, but from 1952 until the present day only one has been opened. It was opened in 1952, and there is every likelihood that it was planned and begun under the Labour Government. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to be nodding assent. That means that under the present and previous Conservative Governments not a single Remploy factory has been provided for disabled workers anywhere in Britain.
The figures show the Minister's reply in its true light. That reply brought despair to those people in my constituency who were waiting for the Minister to give them hope on 6th March. Scotland secured 10 of the Remploy factories that have been built, the last in 1951. During the same period, Scotland was accorded a far greater proportion of the general building of factories in Britain than it has ever been accorded during any year under the present Government.
In their early years, the Labour Government were faced in Scotland and Wales with the very serious problem of the old distressed areas. They went ahead in those years with providing work for many thousands of people who previously had not known what it was to work. At the same time, Labour decided that both in Scotland and Wales the first Remploy factories must cater for those who were generally disabled. I have no doubt that if Labour had remained in power after 1951 I should not be asking at this hour of the morning for a factory to be established to serve those suffering from tuberculosis.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to make the strongest representations to his Minister about the very grave need for

such a factory in Scotland. I know that the Government are operating an economy drive now and have chosen in that drive to carry out some form of control of building, but only in the public sector. There has been not only control but cuts in building programmes for schools and factories, and certainly Remploy factories. My constituents, and people in other constituencies in industrial Scotland who are suffering from tuberculosis, cannot understand the attitude of a Government who make cuts in these essential services and refuse to provide sheltered employment for these people when, at the same time, there can be seen in all these districts what one can only term luxury building in the form of public houses, cinemas and luxurious houses.
It seems to them that the Government's priorities are wrong. I know that one cannot put the whole of the blame on the Parliamentary Secretary or on his Minister. What I am asking them to do is to make the strongest plea to the Treasury on this subject. I want them to ask the Treasury to show humanity. If they can get from the Treasury a decision to provide a Remploy factory in Scotland they will not only have the good wishes of these people, but their blessings.

12.46 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I would like to say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the special difficulty of finding work for those who have suffered tuberculosis. I know that there is fear, even prejudice arising from that fear, which makes it difficult to place people who have suffered this disease in normal employment, even though they are fit for it and there would be no risk to their fellow workers. The safety of employing these people is something which all of us ought to do our utmost to publicise. I can assure the hon. Member that my regional and national officers do their best to reduce that prejudice. I can assure her that in Scotland, particularly, our disabled resettlement officers are doing all they can in this direction.
I want to do the best I can to answer this debate helpfully and sympathetically. I am bound to say that I thought it a pity that the hon. Lady introduced such


a sharp political note into what she said, but as she has done so, I am sure she will understand that there are one or two of those points to which I feel compelled to reply. She said a good deal on the subject of what the Labour Government did about employment in Scotland. I realise that the level of unemployment in Scotland today is above the national average; but it is lower than it has ever been before at this time of the year. It has gone down under the administration of a Tory Government.
The hon. Lady spoke unfairly, I thought, about the cuts in the social services in the employment of disabled persons by Remploy Ltd. That is really the greatest nonsense. I can prove that by figures. In 1950–51, the money spent by the Treasury on Remploy to cover losses totalled £1,732,891. In 1954–55, that sum had risen to £2,699,113. That was an increase of not far short of £1,000,000; an increase, if I can do my arithmetic quickly on my feet, of nearly 50 per cent. in expenditure on Remploy. That cannot be described as a cut in this service. During that period the number of unemployed severely disabled persons in this country went down from 8,704, as it was in 1950–51, to 3,896, as it is today. So, during these four years, the number of severely disabled persons unemployed who might want this employment more than halved.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has quoted figures of expenditure. If he would add to the Labour Government's figures the money that was spent to provide those factories, we would have a very different picture from taking just one year and comparing it with another single year.

Mr. Carr: Time is short, and I want to deal with all the matters raised by the hon. Lady. With the one exception of 1952–53, when expenditure was £60,000 lower than in the previous year, there has been a steady expansion from year to year in Remploy expenditure by the Conservative Government.
The claim for a Remploy factory in Scotland, specially allocated for the tuberculous disabled, has been accepted. I confirm, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question on 6th March, that this factory will have a high priority in any future expansion programme.

Equally, it is only fair to say that we cannot at present make any promise about when Remploy will again be able to start building new factories; I do not want to mislead the hon. Lady or the House in any way.
I wish to discuss for a few moments the factors which determine when Remploy may once again start to build new factories. First, however, I should like to give a short history of the position. In all, there are 90 Remploy factories, 10 in Scotland, 13 in Wales and 67 in England. The number of factories in each country is roughly proportionate to the respective numbers of unemployed severely disabled persons registered in the three countries. The proportion is fair as between England, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. William Hannan: rose—

Mr. Carr: Time does not permit me to give way.
As the hon. Lady undoubtedly knows, people who are disabled by tuberculosis are employed in any of these factories provided that their disease is no longer active and the risk of infection does not prejudice the safety of other workers. Our problem arises in finding employment for those in whom the disease is still active and whose presence would constitute a danger to other workers in the same factory. To meet this need, seven of the Remploy factories in England are specially reserved for the tuberculous, but, unfortunately, there is no such factory in Scotland. It is in this respect that Scotland is worse off than England. In view of the unfortunate higher incidence of tuberculosis in Scotland, I find this complete lack of a special Remploy factory for the tuberculous in Scotland, whilst seven were being provided in England, a very extraordinary matter.
That is the point to which my right hon. Friend referred in his supplementary answer on 6th March. It was the decision of the Labour Government which gave seven factories in this category to England while none was provided in Scotland. Our intention, which, I am sure, both sides of the House support, is that this deficiency shall be put right as soon as possible, and that as soon as it can be done there shall be a special


Remploy factory in Scotland for the tuberculous disabled.
What are the chances of doing that? At the moment, a consolidation and reorganisation of Remploy is actively in progress. The whole of the 90 factories were opened in only seven years, from 1946 to 1952, 71 of them in the first four years, from 1946 to 1949. In 1949, the Labour Government imposed a ban on the starting of further factories, and the last 19, which were completed between 1950 and 1952, had all been begun—or if the bricks were not actually being laid, the process of building had been put into operation—before the 1949 ban was imposed.
That was why I readily nodded when the hon. Lady said that the one completed since the Conservative Government came to power was not one for which we could claim credit. But the ban was imposed in 1949, and I am afraid that the cessation in the provision of the factories has had to be maintained ever since.
I should like to explain to the House why this is so. First, it is said—and the hon. Lady repeated it tonight—that this has something to do with Treasury meanness. It would be idle to deny—and I certainly do not want to attempt to deny it—that we cannot disregard altogether the cost of running Remploy. Of course, we cannot; no Government could do that, whatever party was in power at the moment. But there is something more at stake than merely the matter of whether the Treasury will find the money.
There is a fundamental social purpose behind Remploy, and that purpose is that it exists not merely to provide occupational therapy, still less to provide charity, but to give severely disabled people the chance to contribute really useful productive work and to feel themselves active members of the community. It has been recognised throughout—and it is certainly still recognised by this Government—that a loss would inevitably be incurred in the working of Remploy factories, because of the disabilities involved, the very small factory units sprinkled all over the country, and so on. There must be a loss, but in fairness to the whole conception of sheltered employment and to the disabled themselves it must be a loss which can be defended.
The protection of the social purpose of Remploy is just as important as the protection of the Treasury's interest. Both these interests demand that the business should be run efficiently and that people should feel that is so and that it is not just another form of charity. Over the years there has been accumulating evidence by investigations, which were quite free from any possible taint of party bias, that the efficiency in Remploy was not as high as it could be.
I want to say straight away that that is no criticism of those responsible, who have given really wonderful service in building up this unique form of social service in this country. After all, it is not surprising that the efficiency lacks something. Here is a business, employing about 6,000 people in 90 factories scattered all over the United Kingdom, which had been built up from nothing in only seven years. It is not surprising that such a business is inefficient at that stage of its development and that it needs a long period of consolidation in order to become efficient. That would be so even if there were no special difficulties, such as there are in the case of Remploy, connected with the employment of disabled people.
The Government feel that this basis of full efficiency must be given to Remploy before it can go forward in further expansion on any healthy basis. The Government have been responsible for vigorous action to bring Remploy into the state of maximum efficiency. An investigation was carried out by the O. and M. Division of the Treasury. The Board of Remploy has accepted the recommendations which came out of that investigation. As a result, two business men have been appointed to the Board, Mr. Dowty and Mr. Zealey. The latter has become Vice-Chairman with a view to taking the chairmanship a little later on. A full-time sales director has been appointed and a full-time production director is shortly to be appointed.
The types of business and orders sought and obtained by Remploy have been reviewed in order to try to make them more suitable for efficient working, and other efficiency measures have been adopted. More recently, one Remploy factory has been sponsored by a local firm which supplies that factory with materials for manufacture at a stated cost


while Remploy supplies the management and the labour. All those, I suggest, are important measures of reorganisation and activity in the field of Remploy.
On the financial side, an important agreement has also been reached which should be of the greatest benefit to Remploy. Hitherto, it has had to live on a year-to-year basis. Now it will be able to operate on a five-year basis. It has been arranged that over the next five years Remploy will be able to work within an average of £200,000 per year for capital expenditure and up to £2½ million per year for running expenses, subject in each case to adjustment of those sums to take account of inflation if such should unfortunately occur. For the first time, therefore, Remploy can plan ahead on a firm basis, which I believe, from my own business experience, is a most important, if not a vital, condition for bringing itself to full efficiency.
A great deal has been done by way of organisation and finance, and anybody who knows the reluctance of the Treasury to depart from the strict annual basis of financing with no long-term commitment will realise that the Ministry of Labour can never again be accused of not fighting a tough battle on behalf of Remploy. In coming to this five-year agreement for Remploy, I suggest that we have fought the right and proper battle. I do not

want to make the Treasury seem ungenerous. The Treasury approved this agreement in the interests of helping to put this important social service on a good footing; and for its part. Remploy has undertaken to make it a definite aim to bring down the loss per worker to about the average weekly wage of its disabled employees; it agrees that this is a reasonable yardstick of efficiency.
As efficiency grows, as we hope and believe it will, as a result of these measures—the changes in administration, organisation, business methods and finance which I have announced—the aim of Remploy will be to build up the total number of employees above the present minimum of 6,000, and the building of new factories may also again become possible. If and when the building of new factories again becomes possible, I can, in conclusion, assure the hon. Lady that the factory for which she pleads in Scotland, for tuberculous disabled, will have a very high place indeed on the list of priorities. In trying to put Remploy on a sound basis, I believe sincerely that the Government are doing what is best in the long-term interests of Remploy and in support of the magnificent work which it has done and still has to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.